I admit I feel sorry for former President Thabo Mbeki. I know there are many out there who think he got what he deserved, but his summary dismissal smacked of retribution rather than mature democracy in action.
As I sat thousands of miles away listening to the news on internet radio one image came to mind: a ship of revenge-filled and rum-laden pirates forcing their former captain to walk the plank to jeers and applause.
This is not to say I am a die-hard Mbeki fan. As regular readers of this column will know I have criticised him on several matters. Then again I doubt I will be asking Jacob Zuma over for a cup of tea soon either. The way scandal follows him worries me, as well as his polarising politics.
Since when did South Africa start embracing the "you are either with us or against us" mentality of George Bush? These days it appears as if any remarks about the presidential brawl results in one being placed in the Mbeki or Zuma camp. How did South Africa come to this?
At the risk of reducing complex political shenanigans to the absurd, I see the furore, at least in part, as being linked to the politics of emotion.
It is a well-known story that when Thabo Mbeki met his father, the political stalwart and Robben-islander Govan Mbeki, after not seeing him for 28 years, the pair first shook hands and then briefly hugged calling each other comrades. When Govan was asked about what it was like to see Thabo he said: "Not much finer than seeing others. You must remember that Thabo Mbeki is no longer my son. He is my comrade".
At the risk of psychoanalysing the Mbekis, and notwithstanding decades of hardship, exile and harassment from the apartheid police that saw Thabo Mbeki's son and brother disappear, this incident speaks volumes. Mbeki was not a man prone to sentimentality and emotion, and this came through in his presidency.
On one level, he failed to deliver sufficient material progress, which was inevitable given the apartheid backlog. However, I also believe he did not demonstrate enough understanding and empathy. His continual denialism - whether about HIV/AIDS, Zimbabwe, crime, or the importance of reparations to TRC victims - painted the populace as unable to deal with difficult problems, thus disempowering them. He seemed to feel that he could think his way out the problems rather than lead his way through them with the people.
I believe that his pragmatic and enigmatic persona, whether his true self or not, was an anathema to the South African psyche. We are an emotional people. This is captured in the Toyi-toyi dance used at celebrations and funerals. Emotions and politics are integrally linked, embodied in all the cuddly stereotypes projected on to President Mandela. Against this backdrop it was inevitable that at some point the emotional void created by Mbeki at the top of the political ladder would become unbearable. The result was mutiny.
But now what?
Emotionally speaking, Jacob Zuma is a much better fit for South Africa. He is said to be an amiable, charming and compassionate person. But the court cases and his ruthless ability to dispose of political opponents is hardly appealing making him a difficult person to warm to politically. I think he is, at best, a quick fix, emotionally speaking.
The new South African President, Kgalema Motlanthe, is said to be smart, likeable and exudes a quiet charisma. However, he has risen to power in the most inauspicious of circumstances.
So the emotional vacuum created by Mbeki is still gaping, filled momentarily by a cathartic rage and some bloodletting, and an affable caretaker President. But I fear that more needs to be done for a nation that is, at least at the leadership level, in desperate need of a damned good hug.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 17 October 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Showing posts with label Thabo Mbeki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thabo Mbeki. Show all posts
Friday, October 17, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Zimbabwe - not a crisis, but a little mix-up
Lately, words have been distressing me and increasingly alienating me from the world. This is because our world is now filled with words whose meaning is distorted unrecognisably. We live in the age of euphemisms.
Cars are no longer second-hand but preowned. The world economy is not in free fall but is correcting itself, with staff being rationalised, not being fired. No one sells products anymore but rather solutions. The American justice system does not poison people to death but administers a lethal injection. Civilians are not murdered by armies but are subjected to collateral damage. And who can forget Janet Jackson revealing parts of her upper body to the audience a few years ago and the act being referred to as a wardrobe malfunction?
A euphemism, according to the Webster Online Dictionary, is the substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener.
But why have we become so hooked on the euphemism? Euphemisms serve multiple functions. They can shelter us from the truth, especially when it might be difficult to deal with or make us feel psychologically uncomfortable.
I recall my nephew asking, when he was about four years old, what we were eating for dinner. His mom replied, saying we were going to have lamb. He asked, "like lambs in the field?" She truthfully said yes, but he simply laughed in reply, saying, "No way." In other words, he did not believe that it was possible that lovely fluffy lambs had been recycled as dinner with mint sauce on the side. He instinctually protected himself from an uncomfortable reality.
What is remarkable about our ability to distance ourselves from reality is that this continues unabated into adulthood. Cow flesh gets converted into beef, pig meat into bacon and the poor become disadvantaged, not destitute or starving to death. This helps us cope.
Euphemisms, however, have a more cynical use that extends beyond psychologically protecting oneself from horrid realities. Politics is infused with euphemism.
George Orwell, in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, talks about 'B vocabulary', that is, language "deliberately constructed for political purposes – words . . . which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them".
Robert Mugabe has been using B vocabulary of a sort for years now. In the mid-1980s, he deployed the Fifth Brigade, euphemistically known as Gukurahundi, meaning 'the wind that sweeps away the chaff before the rain'. The Fifth Brigade killed thousands of Zimbabwe's minority Ndebele speakers.
Today, in Zimbabwe, the doublespeak (incidentally, a term attributed to Orwell but which, in fact, he did not use) continues. President Thabo Mbeki is still apparently engaging in 'quiet diplomacy' and Mugabe continues to use his 'war veterans' (henchmen) to terrorise the population into submission.
On the wider international stage, condemnation of the Mugabe regime has become stronger recently, but sanitising language prevails.
Following the election of Mugabe as President for a sixth term, in June, after the opposition pulled out of the running because of intimidation, a spokesperson for United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon had this to say: "The secretary-general has said repeatedly that conditions were not in place for a free and fair election, and observers have confirmed this from the deeply flawed process. The outcome did not reflect the true and genuine will of the Zimbabwean people, or produce a legitimate result".
This was a welcome development, but, I think, it warrants a more honest translation. What Ban Ki-moon meant to say is: "The secretary-general is sick and tired of saying that Mugabe's thuggery has turned the elections into a sham. Observers have seen people being forced to vote for Mugabe against their will and brutal violence has been used repeatedly. The election process is damaged irreparably. The people want Mugabe out and the election outcome is corrupt and criminal in the extreme."
Need I say more?
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 18 July 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Cars are no longer second-hand but preowned. The world economy is not in free fall but is correcting itself, with staff being rationalised, not being fired. No one sells products anymore but rather solutions. The American justice system does not poison people to death but administers a lethal injection. Civilians are not murdered by armies but are subjected to collateral damage. And who can forget Janet Jackson revealing parts of her upper body to the audience a few years ago and the act being referred to as a wardrobe malfunction?
A euphemism, according to the Webster Online Dictionary, is the substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener.
But why have we become so hooked on the euphemism? Euphemisms serve multiple functions. They can shelter us from the truth, especially when it might be difficult to deal with or make us feel psychologically uncomfortable.
I recall my nephew asking, when he was about four years old, what we were eating for dinner. His mom replied, saying we were going to have lamb. He asked, "like lambs in the field?" She truthfully said yes, but he simply laughed in reply, saying, "No way." In other words, he did not believe that it was possible that lovely fluffy lambs had been recycled as dinner with mint sauce on the side. He instinctually protected himself from an uncomfortable reality.
What is remarkable about our ability to distance ourselves from reality is that this continues unabated into adulthood. Cow flesh gets converted into beef, pig meat into bacon and the poor become disadvantaged, not destitute or starving to death. This helps us cope.
Euphemisms, however, have a more cynical use that extends beyond psychologically protecting oneself from horrid realities. Politics is infused with euphemism.
George Orwell, in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, talks about 'B vocabulary', that is, language "deliberately constructed for political purposes – words . . . which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them".
 |
Grace Mugabe with Robert Mugabe 2013
Credit: Dandjk Roberts / CC BY-SA
|
Today, in Zimbabwe, the doublespeak (incidentally, a term attributed to Orwell but which, in fact, he did not use) continues. President Thabo Mbeki is still apparently engaging in 'quiet diplomacy' and Mugabe continues to use his 'war veterans' (henchmen) to terrorise the population into submission.
On the wider international stage, condemnation of the Mugabe regime has become stronger recently, but sanitising language prevails.
Following the election of Mugabe as President for a sixth term, in June, after the opposition pulled out of the running because of intimidation, a spokesperson for United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon had this to say: "The secretary-general has said repeatedly that conditions were not in place for a free and fair election, and observers have confirmed this from the deeply flawed process. The outcome did not reflect the true and genuine will of the Zimbabwean people, or produce a legitimate result".
This was a welcome development, but, I think, it warrants a more honest translation. What Ban Ki-moon meant to say is: "The secretary-general is sick and tired of saying that Mugabe's thuggery has turned the elections into a sham. Observers have seen people being forced to vote for Mugabe against their will and brutal violence has been used repeatedly. The election process is damaged irreparably. The people want Mugabe out and the election outcome is corrupt and criminal in the extreme."
Need I say more?
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 18 July 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Beware: SOHF is spreading
Sometimes it is not only horrific crime stories or Thabo Mbeki’s quiet (twiddling-your-thumbs-while-Rome-burns) diplomacy on Zimbabwe that creep out of South Africa for international consumption. Recently, I heard the story of KwaZulu-Natal Health MEC Peggy Nkonyeni, who suspended rural doctor Mark Blaylock for throwing her picture in the bin. He claims to have been incensed by her visit to a rural hospital where she apparently commented that rural doctors cared more about profit than people and that AZT was toxic.
My favourite part of this story was that the Health Department tried to charge Blaylock with malicious damage to State property. The local prosecutor threw the case out of court, not because the department is clearly insane, but because Blaylock had not damaged the photo.
Of course, Nkonyeni has feelings and I sympathise with that. But getting worked up to the point that someone is almost forced into court strikes me as being sensitive in the extreme. You would think that a person holding public office would be more robust.
Blaylock subsequently apologised. Graciously, Nkonyeni has now lifted the suspension and, in return, is investigating “racism, ill-treatment of staff and abuse of departmental facilities by Dr Blaylock and some doctors operating at some of our rural facilities”.
If the new allegations are true, these should be looked at. But why suspend Blaylock for ‘photo abuse’ and think about racism, a much more serious charge, as an afterthought?
When I heard this story, it reminded me of the tale that used to do the rounds when I worked on the Wits Student newspaper in the 1980s. It concerned Mark Douglas-Home, editor of the student newspaper. The young Douglas-Home, a Briton studying in South Africa, ran a cartoon featuring a small girl peering into a toilet, asking, “Is that the Prime Minister?” The Prime Minister at the time, BJ Vorster, not renowned for his sense of humour, was outraged. Douglas-Home was deported to England in 1972.
Now, of course, I am not making direct comparisons between Nkonyeni and Vorster, which would be ridiculous. It is impossible to compare anyone or anything to Vorster, except, maybe, a toilet.
But I do want to question why deference to political power, whether a photograph or an irreverent cartoon, is even expected, whether in the past or the present.
The whole notion of heads of State or government functionaries being adorned on walls or commemorated through statues, the world over, is something I cannot fathom.
Those in office are paid by you and me. They work for us. If anyone’s face should be on the wall, it should be those of the people. I appreciate that putting a picture of a few million people on a wall is a tad tricky. I am also not condoning disrespectful behaviour to leaders. A President or a pauper deserves respect. But respect is something which is earned, not created through plastering pictures of the President, or whoever, all over the place.
Also, what is it about being in a position of power that causes one’s sense of humour to expire? There seems to be an inverse relationship between political power and a disease called SOHF, aka Sense of Humour Failure. And what worries me is that SOHF is spreading rampantly in South Africa.
Last I heard, Jacob Zuma had caught the bug. He is suing Zapiro for depicting him in cartoons as having a shower attached to his head, a not-so-subtle reference to his comments that he showers after sex to help prevent HIV/Aids transmission.
Zapiro, my friend, my advice is: apologise now and cooperate fully with the commission of inquiry that follows. Better still, flush your pens down the toilet and, why not, deport yourself. I have heard that censorship is the only cure for SOHF.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 10 May 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
My favourite part of this story was that the Health Department tried to charge Blaylock with malicious damage to State property. The local prosecutor threw the case out of court, not because the department is clearly insane, but because Blaylock had not damaged the photo.
Of course, Nkonyeni has feelings and I sympathise with that. But getting worked up to the point that someone is almost forced into court strikes me as being sensitive in the extreme. You would think that a person holding public office would be more robust.
Blaylock subsequently apologised. Graciously, Nkonyeni has now lifted the suspension and, in return, is investigating “racism, ill-treatment of staff and abuse of departmental facilities by Dr Blaylock and some doctors operating at some of our rural facilities”.
If the new allegations are true, these should be looked at. But why suspend Blaylock for ‘photo abuse’ and think about racism, a much more serious charge, as an afterthought?
When I heard this story, it reminded me of the tale that used to do the rounds when I worked on the Wits Student newspaper in the 1980s. It concerned Mark Douglas-Home, editor of the student newspaper. The young Douglas-Home, a Briton studying in South Africa, ran a cartoon featuring a small girl peering into a toilet, asking, “Is that the Prime Minister?” The Prime Minister at the time, BJ Vorster, not renowned for his sense of humour, was outraged. Douglas-Home was deported to England in 1972.
Now, of course, I am not making direct comparisons between Nkonyeni and Vorster, which would be ridiculous. It is impossible to compare anyone or anything to Vorster, except, maybe, a toilet.
But I do want to question why deference to political power, whether a photograph or an irreverent cartoon, is even expected, whether in the past or the present.
The whole notion of heads of State or government functionaries being adorned on walls or commemorated through statues, the world over, is something I cannot fathom.
Those in office are paid by you and me. They work for us. If anyone’s face should be on the wall, it should be those of the people. I appreciate that putting a picture of a few million people on a wall is a tad tricky. I am also not condoning disrespectful behaviour to leaders. A President or a pauper deserves respect. But respect is something which is earned, not created through plastering pictures of the President, or whoever, all over the place.
Also, what is it about being in a position of power that causes one’s sense of humour to expire? There seems to be an inverse relationship between political power and a disease called SOHF, aka Sense of Humour Failure. And what worries me is that SOHF is spreading rampantly in South Africa.
Last I heard, Jacob Zuma had caught the bug. He is suing Zapiro for depicting him in cartoons as having a shower attached to his head, a not-so-subtle reference to his comments that he showers after sex to help prevent HIV/Aids transmission.
Zapiro, my friend, my advice is: apologise now and cooperate fully with the commission of inquiry that follows. Better still, flush your pens down the toilet and, why not, deport yourself. I have heard that censorship is the only cure for SOHF.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 10 May 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Tips for riding a Zumanami
There is no doubt Thabo Mbeki was hit by a ‘Zumanami’ at the African National Congress (ANC) conference. He was trounced by Jacob Zuma, who seized the mantle of ANC president. The story is great reading, containing sleaze and power politics. Not since 1994 has so much been written about South Africa. I am not even sure whether I should weigh in on the debate.
But, as I sit staring at my screen, I am inevitably drawn back to the overanalysed story as surely as a jolly smiling fat bloke will always defeat a dull, short and grumpy technocrat when it comes down to a popularity contest (especially at Christmas).
On reflection, the whole affair was poetic (if you were not Mbeki). It was a magnificent demonstration of democracy with the people (well, ANC members) and the underdog winning the day. In an instant, Mbeki crumbled. Suddenly he seemed feeble, nattering on for two hours to a crowd who were not listening but sharpening their voting pencils, ready to make their fateful mark. And, indeed, a mark was made on history.
Zuma, the populist, the come-back kid, and an earthy soldier from the grass roots, has made it to the pinnacle of power (well, almost). He is seemingly destined to be the next South African President. Corruption charges and being acquitted of rape have propelled him forward and added wind to his people-powered sails.
So is this how we like our politicians these days? Fallible but personable? With a weakness for making dodgy friends, but indestructible? Four weddings down and still no funerals? Or is Zuma’s triumph merely a protest vote against the waBenzi – that Mercedes-Benz-driving new elite?
However, unlike fairy tales that end happily ever after, this story still has more pages to burn. Will Zuma shrug off corruption charges? Will Mbeki supporters roll over? And how long until the masses notice that Zuma himself probably has a Merc, if not a fleet? Who knows?
What I do know is that the event received massive international coverage. And, as in South Africa, reviews were mixed. International newspapers such as the New York Times and the UK Financial Times hailed it as a cautious triumph for democracy. The UK Guardian was more sceptical, asking whether South Africa deserved “a better choice than a dubious populist as its leader”.
But what is certain is that South Africa did not collapse with Zuma’s victory as some predicted. Even the rand managed to hold firm. Is this is a sign that politics does not really matter any more and that South Africa is just becoming another boring democracy? Or, as the Financial Times noted, is it because there is no need to worry (if you are a big shot financial investor, that is) because, despite the rhetoric, Zuma “is no radical left winger”.
So the Zumanami has come and gone. On one level, it seems radical. Yet, on another, as the waters subside, I am left feeling the process may be similar to that of a flood. Although a deluge can change everything in its path once the water recedes, people tend to build their houses in the same place. Will that much change?
Any prediction is doomed to failure, it seems. It is like gambling on whether global warming will or will not eventually result in floods sinking New York. Mbeki’s undoing was his remarkable ability to deny the impact of issues such as crime to HIV on ordinary people’s lives. Is a little compassion and affability all that the masses need? I suspect not.
So, JZ, my friend, you had better start waxing your surfboard. It is one thing stirring up a tidal wave, but surfing on the crest for a few years while trying to outwit the anticorruption squad and building several million houses at the same time is another matter.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 18 January 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
But, as I sit staring at my screen, I am inevitably drawn back to the overanalysed story as surely as a jolly smiling fat bloke will always defeat a dull, short and grumpy technocrat when it comes down to a popularity contest (especially at Christmas).
On reflection, the whole affair was poetic (if you were not Mbeki). It was a magnificent demonstration of democracy with the people (well, ANC members) and the underdog winning the day. In an instant, Mbeki crumbled. Suddenly he seemed feeble, nattering on for two hours to a crowd who were not listening but sharpening their voting pencils, ready to make their fateful mark. And, indeed, a mark was made on history.
Zuma, the populist, the come-back kid, and an earthy soldier from the grass roots, has made it to the pinnacle of power (well, almost). He is seemingly destined to be the next South African President. Corruption charges and being acquitted of rape have propelled him forward and added wind to his people-powered sails.
So is this how we like our politicians these days? Fallible but personable? With a weakness for making dodgy friends, but indestructible? Four weddings down and still no funerals? Or is Zuma’s triumph merely a protest vote against the waBenzi – that Mercedes-Benz-driving new elite?
However, unlike fairy tales that end happily ever after, this story still has more pages to burn. Will Zuma shrug off corruption charges? Will Mbeki supporters roll over? And how long until the masses notice that Zuma himself probably has a Merc, if not a fleet? Who knows?
What I do know is that the event received massive international coverage. And, as in South Africa, reviews were mixed. International newspapers such as the New York Times and the UK Financial Times hailed it as a cautious triumph for democracy. The UK Guardian was more sceptical, asking whether South Africa deserved “a better choice than a dubious populist as its leader”.
But what is certain is that South Africa did not collapse with Zuma’s victory as some predicted. Even the rand managed to hold firm. Is this is a sign that politics does not really matter any more and that South Africa is just becoming another boring democracy? Or, as the Financial Times noted, is it because there is no need to worry (if you are a big shot financial investor, that is) because, despite the rhetoric, Zuma “is no radical left winger”.
So the Zumanami has come and gone. On one level, it seems radical. Yet, on another, as the waters subside, I am left feeling the process may be similar to that of a flood. Although a deluge can change everything in its path once the water recedes, people tend to build their houses in the same place. Will that much change?
Any prediction is doomed to failure, it seems. It is like gambling on whether global warming will or will not eventually result in floods sinking New York. Mbeki’s undoing was his remarkable ability to deny the impact of issues such as crime to HIV on ordinary people’s lives. Is a little compassion and affability all that the masses need? I suspect not.
So, JZ, my friend, you had better start waxing your surfboard. It is one thing stirring up a tidal wave, but surfing on the crest for a few years while trying to outwit the anticorruption squad and building several million houses at the same time is another matter.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 18 January 2008 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Friday, December 7, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Get rich or die trying
In the US and Canada, each State has a slogan under the number plate of cars registered in it. For example, Washington, DC, plates have the phrase ‘Taxation without representation’ on them, making reference to the State’s lack of voting representation in Congress. Nova Scotia plates have the less political ‘Canada’s Ocean Playground’ emblazoned on them. On a recent trip to South Africa, this got me wondering what might be an appropriate slogan for Gauteng, where Johannesburg is located. After a short drive through the city, the answer was clear: ‘If you’ve got it, flaunt it’. Desperate poverty sits uncomfortably next to excessive and unabashed wealth. South Africa is now 120th out of 177 countries on the UN index that measures the rich-poor gap. It has dropped some 30 places since 1995. Yet, as Abraham McLaughlin, of the Christian Science Monitor, reported recently, nearly 7% of all new cars bought in the country are BMWs. This makes it the second-highest per-new-car sales of BMWs in the world, fractionally behind Germany’s 8%. Car sales in South Africa increased by 25% last year, the biggest increase in the world. But is this not a good thing? On some level, it reflects the rapid economic growth in the country, which is getting close to 5%, according to some sources. Wealth is slowly deracialising. Life is booming for those who can get a seat on the gravy train. Johannesburg is going through a second gold rush. At the same time, this has led, according to President Thabo Mbeki, to wanton consumerism. At the fourth annual Nelson Mandela Lecture recently, he noted: “The demons embedded in our society, that stalk us at every minute, seem always to beckon each one of us towards a realisable dream and nightmare . . . with every passing second, they advise, with rhythmic and hypnotic regularity, ‘Get rich! Get rich! Get rich!’ And, thus, it has come about that many of us accept that our common natural instinct to escape from poverty is but the other side of the same coin on whose reverse side is written the words, ‘At all costs, get rich!’” South Africa is not the only place in the world where consumerism is all-encompassing, but it specialises in pretension. As a friend mentioned to me, life is measured by the three Cs – car, credit card and cellphone. It is a national obsession.
Although the term ‘conspicuous consumption’, coined in 1899, is somewhat outdated, it seems alive and well in the not-so-new South Africa. The term, according to Wikipedia, is used to describe lavish spending on goods acquired mainly for displaying wealth as a form of social status. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman sees consumerism as even more insidious. He talks of a ‘consumerist syndrome’. Gratification has to be immediate and consumerism is all-pervasive in our relationships, attitudes, thoughts and visions of happiness. This is typified by the way liberation is sought through the power of ‘things’. It may sound melodramatic, but has liberation in South Africa been commodified? Of course, I do not bemoan people’s success or regret that more people are sharing in the profit pie. Economic growth is needed. I am also not laying the blame for consumerism with the government, or the rising black elite. It is much more pervasive than that. Ostentation knows no racial or class boundaries in South Africa. But it has its cost.
As Mbeki notes, the ‘get rich’ mantra is doing something to the essence of humanity in the country. Rampant consumerism and the ‘get rich or die trying’ mentality are great bedfellows. Violent and white-collar crimes are the natural extension of this. At the risk of sounding like a conservative moralist, Mbeki is right when he calls for an RDP, or reconstruction and development programme, of the soul for all South Africans. Luxury cars, flashy houses and cellphones can never be enough.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 18 August 2006 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Although the term ‘conspicuous consumption’, coined in 1899, is somewhat outdated, it seems alive and well in the not-so-new South Africa. The term, according to Wikipedia, is used to describe lavish spending on goods acquired mainly for displaying wealth as a form of social status. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman sees consumerism as even more insidious. He talks of a ‘consumerist syndrome’. Gratification has to be immediate and consumerism is all-pervasive in our relationships, attitudes, thoughts and visions of happiness. This is typified by the way liberation is sought through the power of ‘things’. It may sound melodramatic, but has liberation in South Africa been commodified? Of course, I do not bemoan people’s success or regret that more people are sharing in the profit pie. Economic growth is needed. I am also not laying the blame for consumerism with the government, or the rising black elite. It is much more pervasive than that. Ostentation knows no racial or class boundaries in South Africa. But it has its cost.
As Mbeki notes, the ‘get rich’ mantra is doing something to the essence of humanity in the country. Rampant consumerism and the ‘get rich or die trying’ mentality are great bedfellows. Violent and white-collar crimes are the natural extension of this. At the risk of sounding like a conservative moralist, Mbeki is right when he calls for an RDP, or reconstruction and development programme, of the soul for all South Africans. Luxury cars, flashy houses and cellphones can never be enough.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 18 August 2006 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Is South Africa becoming boring?
This year, perhaps because I like punishment, I spent considerable time poring over the 7 800 words of South African President Thabo Mbeki’s State of the Nation address. It was not reading it, however, that was punishing, rather its central message. The text itself is a good read, filled with quotes from Shakespeare, the poet Ingrid Jonker, and a liberal smattering of the prophet Isaiah. Mbeki is eloquent and his speeches are often interesting. But what I missed this time round was the challenge and the controversy. The core message was just a little too mainstream for my anarchic brain. Remember Mbeki’s comment in 1998 that South Africa consists of two nations, one white and rich, the other black and poor. Now that got the nation talking. His challenges about ongoing racism at the national conference on racism, in 2000, and at other times too, have had similar effects. Mbeki’s message these days, if his State of the Nation speech is anything to go by, is a lot blander. He seems to think, while acknowledging challenges like corruption and poverty, that South Africa is a nation of patriots shaking off the past and happily working together in partnership on board the slow gravy train to transformation. Using Mbeki’s own words, “yesterday was another country” and South Africa is entering an “age of hope”. He feels “the years of freedom have been very good for business” and business need not fear for its financial wellbeing, as long as it is helping grow the economy. In fact, the word ‘growth’ is used a whopping 19 times in his State of the Nation speech. Mbeki also spends much time in his speech thanking the world, its brother and its former roommates for their contribution to the new South Africa, from ‘Bollywood’ actor Anil Kapoor to the millions who have tried to make a go of things since 1994. The only ones to get a lambasting are Bafana Bafana, who are singled out because they “did nothing to advertise our strengths as a winning nation” in the African Cup of Nations. Again, hardly a controversial statement, since 99% of South Africans probably agree.
Where has Mbeki the controversial gone? Although some parties criticised Mbeki for skirting issues concerning Aids, crime and corruption, they all, from the SACP to Tony Leon, liked the focus on the economy.
This I find worrying rather than encouraging. Have Mbeki’s years of being beaten by the local and international press, if he vaguely challenges the wealthy, muzzled him, or is South Africa becoming a boring middle-of-the-road sort of place, where fiscal management and interest rates are hot topics of discussion? If I can put this another way: if we substituted the words ‘Bafana Bafana’ for the England football team (who also have a knack for falling from footballing grace given half a chance), there is something decidedly Tony Blair about Mbeki’s speech.
The standard New Labour mantra works in a similar fashion: sycophantic praise for various people, excessive mention of public–private partnership and a barrage of statistics to drive home how good the ruling party has been for the country, the economy and, largely, the middle class.
That said, I do not doubt the achievements of the ANC government, given the social problems facing South Africa, and it is great that South Africa has a literate president, unlike some superpowers. But I think a good president challenges the population. Mbeki has excelled at this over the years. I know some of you reading this probably dislike him intensely for that but, as they say, you have to break eggs to make an omelette. If the president is not going to cause a hullabaloo from time to time, and particularly challenge the wealthy and the complacent, then who will?
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 17 February 2006 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Where has Mbeki the controversial gone? Although some parties criticised Mbeki for skirting issues concerning Aids, crime and corruption, they all, from the SACP to Tony Leon, liked the focus on the economy.
This I find worrying rather than encouraging. Have Mbeki’s years of being beaten by the local and international press, if he vaguely challenges the wealthy, muzzled him, or is South Africa becoming a boring middle-of-the-road sort of place, where fiscal management and interest rates are hot topics of discussion? If I can put this another way: if we substituted the words ‘Bafana Bafana’ for the England football team (who also have a knack for falling from footballing grace given half a chance), there is something decidedly Tony Blair about Mbeki’s speech.
The standard New Labour mantra works in a similar fashion: sycophantic praise for various people, excessive mention of public–private partnership and a barrage of statistics to drive home how good the ruling party has been for the country, the economy and, largely, the middle class.
That said, I do not doubt the achievements of the ANC government, given the social problems facing South Africa, and it is great that South Africa has a literate president, unlike some superpowers. But I think a good president challenges the population. Mbeki has excelled at this over the years. I know some of you reading this probably dislike him intensely for that but, as they say, you have to break eggs to make an omelette. If the president is not going to cause a hullabaloo from time to time, and particularly challenge the wealthy and the complacent, then who will?
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 17 February 2006 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Thursday, July 7, 2005
Let's stop moralising about corruption in Africa
The big debate in the UK and Ireland at the moment is whether debt relief will help Africa, given that many African governments are corrupt. President Mbeki’s recent move to axe Deputy President Zuma because of a ‘generally corrupt relationship’ with Schabir Shaik, a Durban businessman sentenced to 15 years for corruption and fraud, seems to have offered a rebuttal. The Western world has declared its support for Mbeki’s approach, emphasising how he has set an example for the rest of Africa. To some degree, he has, but what is annoying is that everyone seems so surprised that an African leader would take such a step. Granted, many African countries are appallingly corrupt, but Mbeki is a world leader, not only an African leader. Making bold inferences about the importance of his actions for the rest of Africa reinforces the idea that somehow Mbeki is an exceptional black man and that Africans are somehow endemically corrupt or incapable of simply doing the right thing. We would all do well to remember that Mbeki’s actions set a precedent the world over and not only for Africa. Mbeki is also not alone. A recent anticorruption campaign in Nigeria has resulted in the firing of several senior officials. The Kenyan government is allegedly investigating 18 officials highlighted in a British government dossier. This is not to say Africa does not have a serious problem with corruption or that a dash of scepticism about recent anticorruption initiatives would go amiss. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index confirms that 18 of the 50 most corrupt nations are in Africa. Corruption has damaged investment and poverty-relief efforts. According to the World Bank, widespread corruption can cause the growth rate of a country to be 0,5 to 1,0 percentage points lower than that of a similar country with little corruption. But no country has the moral high ground on this issue. Transparency International points out that corrupt international business transactions involve both those who take and those who give. According to the 1997 United Nations World Development Report, 15% of all companies in industrialised countries have to pay bribes to win or retain business. All countries also have their corruption scandals. Tax evasion from the small scale to the grand is the corrupt vice of many wealthy people.
From a cynical perspective, if Zuma was in Tony Blair’s Cabinet he probably would have jumped before he was pushed. A well-timed resignation, perhaps when allegations about Shaik first emerged, may well have saved his skin, just as it has for ministers in the Blair Cabinet implicated in various scandals. Once the storm has passed, Blair has a tendency to reinstate ministers suspected of wrongdoing.
Of course, just because everyone is doing it does not let Africa off the hook, and the problem is dramatically worse in parts of the African continent than elsewhere. But in every society, as Transparency International points out, there are those who try to ‘beat the system’ and, if the system is vulnerable, there will be more of them. For Transparency International, the issue is not one of ‘moral superiority’, but developing the ability to control the menace. The debate on corruption must move beyond proselytising about corruption and Africa, as if they are synonymous. The result is that the continent as a whole is treated dismissively, rather than nuanced solutions for each unique country context being sought. So let us stop the moralising about Africa and its leadership and find ways to join the battle.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 7 July 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
From a cynical perspective, if Zuma was in Tony Blair’s Cabinet he probably would have jumped before he was pushed. A well-timed resignation, perhaps when allegations about Shaik first emerged, may well have saved his skin, just as it has for ministers in the Blair Cabinet implicated in various scandals. Once the storm has passed, Blair has a tendency to reinstate ministers suspected of wrongdoing.
Of course, just because everyone is doing it does not let Africa off the hook, and the problem is dramatically worse in parts of the African continent than elsewhere. But in every society, as Transparency International points out, there are those who try to ‘beat the system’ and, if the system is vulnerable, there will be more of them. For Transparency International, the issue is not one of ‘moral superiority’, but developing the ability to control the menace. The debate on corruption must move beyond proselytising about corruption and Africa, as if they are synonymous. The result is that the continent as a whole is treated dismissively, rather than nuanced solutions for each unique country context being sought. So let us stop the moralising about Africa and its leadership and find ways to join the battle.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 7 July 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Mbeki stirs the ghost of Churchill
So South African President Thabo Mbeki is back in the news again. But this time the focus is not on substantive issues such as Aids or African peacemaking, rather it is the ghost of Winston Churchill.
In a speech to the National Assembly in Sudan, Mbeki made reference to the writings of Churchill noting that he felt the great leader held racist views. This is evidenced for Mbeki in Churchill's book entitled the "The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan" which chronicles the British campaign in Sudan.
Referring to African Muslims, Churchill writes: "Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live".
Africans as lazy, incompetent and fanatical . . . sounds fairly racist to me.
Following Mbeki's speech, headlines pronounced "Mbeki slams Winston Churchill" and "Mbeki blames British imperialism for Sudan's problems". On the radio the British public took exception to Mbeki's approach to their war hero. Newspapers such as the Telegraph criticised Mbeki's "extraordinary weakness" at laying the "present problems at the door of the late 19th century".
The incident is a curious one, though.
Surely, no one can take exception to the fact that Churchill, like many contemporaries, looked upon Africans with views that by today's standards were undeniably racist. His writing confirms this.
Something else is going on when people get worked up about a reference to Britain's colonial past. Mention of the reality and legacy of colonialism seems to immediately hit an emotive nerve.
Besides those who wish to deny Britain's colonial history altogether, some commentators seem to take from Mbeki's speech what they want to hear.
The Telegraph hears Mbeki blaming all current problems in Africa on the past. Others hear an accusation that whites today still have to pay for what their forefathers did even though that was generations ago.
But Mbeki's speech, if anyone takes the time to read it, is doing none of this.
He is not lambasting whites en masse. His target audience was not the former colonial powers. He is not just taking a cheap shot at Churchill. When reading his speech it is obvious that, given he was speaking as a South African on an anniversary celebration of the 1956 Sudanese independence, he is attempting to make a link between Sudanese and South Africa history.
Sudan was the first African country to receive independence from its colonial masters; South Africa was the last, in 1994. Mbeki's message is simple. Both countries share a troubled history, sometimes linked with the brutal exploits of the very same men, such as Kitchener, who Churchill glorifies in his book, and this history means much has to be done to set the present right.
"In the end the point I am making is that our shared colonial past left both of us with a common and terrible legacy of countries deeply divided on the basis of race, colour, culture and religion. But surely, that shared colonial past must also tell us that we probably need to work together to share the burden of building the post-colonial future," Mbeki says.
His message is forward looking. He does not hide from the responsibility of African countries. He is not trying to divert attention from Africa's failings by playing the race card as some commentators seem to think.
I do not intend to write a defence of Mbeki. His approach to Zimbabwe, Aids and a number of other issues are problematic. Mbeki could have used the opportunity in Sudan to question the Sudanese government's human rights record. But, interestingly, this is not what the mainstream media seem to focus on either. Rather, it is his comments about a dead Prime Minister that get them talking.
The reaction to Mbeki's views on Churchill tells us more about those that reacted to it than Mbeki. Sadly, these reactions are still influenced by stereotypical views of Africa, as Mbeki implies.
Some journalists, not to mention certain politicians in South Africa, seem to be obsessed with trying to look for a chink in Mbeki's armour that is going to expose him as another African despot. Are they looking for echoes of Mugabe in his comments? This seems to be what they perversely want to hear.
Few take the time to listen, reflect and grapple with the reality that colonialism does still affect the African continent, whether those of us alive had anything to do with it or not. Would it have not been more remarkable if Mbeki did not mention colonialism in a speech on an occasion celebrating African independence?
Sometimes I wonder if Mbeki's critics see him as politician with the strengths and weaknesses as any other or if they are still struggling to see past his skin colour.
As a politician he has made mistakes. As an African leader, surely he is correct in continually pointing out the failings past and present of those that colonised the place and continue to exploit it.
In a speech to the National Assembly in Sudan, Mbeki made reference to the writings of Churchill noting that he felt the great leader held racist views. This is evidenced for Mbeki in Churchill's book entitled the "The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan" which chronicles the British campaign in Sudan.
Referring to African Muslims, Churchill writes: "Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live".
Africans as lazy, incompetent and fanatical . . . sounds fairly racist to me.
Following Mbeki's speech, headlines pronounced "Mbeki slams Winston Churchill" and "Mbeki blames British imperialism for Sudan's problems". On the radio the British public took exception to Mbeki's approach to their war hero. Newspapers such as the Telegraph criticised Mbeki's "extraordinary weakness" at laying the "present problems at the door of the late 19th century".
The incident is a curious one, though.
 |
| Headline in the Guardian |
Something else is going on when people get worked up about a reference to Britain's colonial past. Mention of the reality and legacy of colonialism seems to immediately hit an emotive nerve.
Besides those who wish to deny Britain's colonial history altogether, some commentators seem to take from Mbeki's speech what they want to hear.
The Telegraph hears Mbeki blaming all current problems in Africa on the past. Others hear an accusation that whites today still have to pay for what their forefathers did even though that was generations ago.
But Mbeki's speech, if anyone takes the time to read it, is doing none of this.
He is not lambasting whites en masse. His target audience was not the former colonial powers. He is not just taking a cheap shot at Churchill. When reading his speech it is obvious that, given he was speaking as a South African on an anniversary celebration of the 1956 Sudanese independence, he is attempting to make a link between Sudanese and South Africa history.
Sudan was the first African country to receive independence from its colonial masters; South Africa was the last, in 1994. Mbeki's message is simple. Both countries share a troubled history, sometimes linked with the brutal exploits of the very same men, such as Kitchener, who Churchill glorifies in his book, and this history means much has to be done to set the present right.
"In the end the point I am making is that our shared colonial past left both of us with a common and terrible legacy of countries deeply divided on the basis of race, colour, culture and religion. But surely, that shared colonial past must also tell us that we probably need to work together to share the burden of building the post-colonial future," Mbeki says.
His message is forward looking. He does not hide from the responsibility of African countries. He is not trying to divert attention from Africa's failings by playing the race card as some commentators seem to think.
I do not intend to write a defence of Mbeki. His approach to Zimbabwe, Aids and a number of other issues are problematic. Mbeki could have used the opportunity in Sudan to question the Sudanese government's human rights record. But, interestingly, this is not what the mainstream media seem to focus on either. Rather, it is his comments about a dead Prime Minister that get them talking.
The reaction to Mbeki's views on Churchill tells us more about those that reacted to it than Mbeki. Sadly, these reactions are still influenced by stereotypical views of Africa, as Mbeki implies.
Some journalists, not to mention certain politicians in South Africa, seem to be obsessed with trying to look for a chink in Mbeki's armour that is going to expose him as another African despot. Are they looking for echoes of Mugabe in his comments? This seems to be what they perversely want to hear.
Few take the time to listen, reflect and grapple with the reality that colonialism does still affect the African continent, whether those of us alive had anything to do with it or not. Would it have not been more remarkable if Mbeki did not mention colonialism in a speech on an occasion celebrating African independence?
Sometimes I wonder if Mbeki's critics see him as politician with the strengths and weaknesses as any other or if they are still struggling to see past his skin colour.
As a politician he has made mistakes. As an African leader, surely he is correct in continually pointing out the failings past and present of those that colonised the place and continue to exploit it.
Churchill made a massive contribution to history, but, like all people, Mbeki included, he clearly has flaws. Being precious about Churchill's legacy is hardly being true to the complexity of history. Treating Africa as if it does not have a colonial past and that this does not impact on the present is equally as myopic.
This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 28 January 2005 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.
Original article, here.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
New South African Cabinet
President Mbeki has released the list of the new Cabinet...no more Buthelezi and an AZAPO appointment to Cabinet are the strange only ones, and needless to say Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang the Health Minister keep her job despite every attempt to lose it over the HIV/AIDS issue in the last while!
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Mbeki speaks out on apartheid suits
The government does not support compensation lawsuits by apartheid victims against businesses, President Thabo Mbeki reiterated on Tuesday.
Many of the companies named in such lawsuits are today helping with South Africa's development, Mbeki said at the end of a meeting with his Swiss counterpart Pascal Couchepin.
In May, a group called the Apartheid Claims Task Force announced plans to file a lawsuit worth billions of dollars in New York against South African gold mining company Gold Fields for making blacks work under "sub-human" conditions during the apartheid regime.
One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit is US attorney Ed Fagan, who already spearheaded a successful claim against Swiss banks on behalf of Holocaust victims.
Fagan has also filed or announced plans to file other suits against Swiss and US banks, pharmaceutical conglomerates, car manufacturers, food giant Nestle, and mining companies De Beers and Anglo American, among others, on the grounds that they benefited under the apartheid regime.
Mbeki has said on previous occassions that the South African government found the suits unacceptable.
"We consider it completely unacceptable that matters that are central to the future of our country should be adjudicated in foreign courts which bear no responsibility for the well-being of our country and the observance of the perspective contained in our constitution of the promotion of national reconciliation," he said in Cape Town on April 15.
AFP, 11 Jun 2003
Many of the companies named in such lawsuits are today helping with South Africa's development, Mbeki said at the end of a meeting with his Swiss counterpart Pascal Couchepin.
In May, a group called the Apartheid Claims Task Force announced plans to file a lawsuit worth billions of dollars in New York against South African gold mining company Gold Fields for making blacks work under "sub-human" conditions during the apartheid regime.
One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit is US attorney Ed Fagan, who already spearheaded a successful claim against Swiss banks on behalf of Holocaust victims.
Fagan has also filed or announced plans to file other suits against Swiss and US banks, pharmaceutical conglomerates, car manufacturers, food giant Nestle, and mining companies De Beers and Anglo American, among others, on the grounds that they benefited under the apartheid regime.
Mbeki has said on previous occassions that the South African government found the suits unacceptable.
"We consider it completely unacceptable that matters that are central to the future of our country should be adjudicated in foreign courts which bear no responsibility for the well-being of our country and the observance of the perspective contained in our constitution of the promotion of national reconciliation," he said in Cape Town on April 15.
AFP, 11 Jun 2003
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
Clarion call on debt and reparations now
Clarion call to the people of South Africa on debt and reparations now, 16 April 2003
Today on the occasion of the final statement made by the President of South Africa on the matter of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Reparations, Jubilee South Africa and Khulumani Support Group wish to make the following call to the people of our country:
1. Our organisations comprise the mass movement of the people of our land who continue to bare brunt of the on going assault on our lives engineered and orchestrated by the system of racial capitalism, sometimes called apartheid. Our people live not with a mere legacy from the past; rather the past lives on in their daily lives in a multitude of ways. In this regard the question of the economic system set up by apartheid and the part played by debt in it is a fundamental problem contained in the process of the ongoing redistribution of wealth in our country from the poor to the rich.
2. We note with concern the gigantic retreat taken by our President today in his conclusion of the work of the TRC. We have no doubt hat the corporations in this country will find these provisions totally in ine with the economic system whose practice continues in the present. Our organisations will continue in the coming period to look for ways of reconstructing the given provisions in the interest of the poor. This applies to the 22 000 victims of crime who appeared before the TRC; many more others who are members of Khulumani; and millions of others who continue to bare the social chains set off by racial capitalism.
3. Our organisations note the position expressed by our President in relation to the civil suits currently before the courts in the USA. We will continue to debate these issues in a democratic spirit at all levels of social engagement in this country, certainly among ourselves, our labour unions, our youth formations, our women's organisations, our faith bodies, our social movements as well as the structures of national governance. We have no doubt that the justice of our belief in ensuring the advancement of corrective, political, social and judicial measures in reply to apartheid crimes will ultimately triumph.
4. Our current civil suits target foreign corporations. To the local corporations within the borders of our country we say; we would not prefer to deal with you in a court of law whether it be a foreign or a local court. Our preferences is to call on you to use this moment so the purpose of opening up a meaningful dialogue with our organisations in achieving the following outcomes:
5. To this end Khulumani Support Group and Jubilee South Africa are convening a national conference at a date and venue to be announced soon in order to allow the ordinary citizens of our land concretely to prepare an alternative position on reparations based on the stand we have taken in relation to foreign corporations. That specifically applies to South African corporations. This conference will designate a national process driven by the hand of ordinary citizens that will deal with the members of the business world in South Africa. Further it will serve to construct a process for reconciliation that denies the power of the past in our present.
Finally, the conference will designate a process of social mobilisation and political intervention that will not exclude the taking of South African companies to court if they are unwilling to address our platform.
Citizens of South Africa! The entire debt of racial capitalism consists in the extra judicial crimes of the apartheid system.
It also consists in these crimes which carved up our labour life; their mining, industrial and commercial system; their ghettos called locations, townships, homelands; their farm labour policies; their banking and financial systems; their internal debt as of 1993; their crimes against the ecology; their collarboration with the apartheid regime in illegal actions! This is the internal component of odius debt!
To the extent that these matters remain outstanding in the real work done by the TRC, and as concluded today, these continue to constitute the living social deficits caused by racial capitalism. The hour has now struck for the voice and hand of the people to guide our thoughts and actions on the question of reparations!
Issued by the National Executive Committee of Jubilee South Africa
Issued by the National Executive Committee of Khulumani Support Group
MP Giyose - National Chairperson of Jubilee South Africa
Ike Tlholwe - National Director of Khulumani Support Group
Today on the occasion of the final statement made by the President of South Africa on the matter of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Reparations, Jubilee South Africa and Khulumani Support Group wish to make the following call to the people of our country:
1. Our organisations comprise the mass movement of the people of our land who continue to bare brunt of the on going assault on our lives engineered and orchestrated by the system of racial capitalism, sometimes called apartheid. Our people live not with a mere legacy from the past; rather the past lives on in their daily lives in a multitude of ways. In this regard the question of the economic system set up by apartheid and the part played by debt in it is a fundamental problem contained in the process of the ongoing redistribution of wealth in our country from the poor to the rich.
2. We note with concern the gigantic retreat taken by our President today in his conclusion of the work of the TRC. We have no doubt hat the corporations in this country will find these provisions totally in ine with the economic system whose practice continues in the present. Our organisations will continue in the coming period to look for ways of reconstructing the given provisions in the interest of the poor. This applies to the 22 000 victims of crime who appeared before the TRC; many more others who are members of Khulumani; and millions of others who continue to bare the social chains set off by racial capitalism.
3. Our organisations note the position expressed by our President in relation to the civil suits currently before the courts in the USA. We will continue to debate these issues in a democratic spirit at all levels of social engagement in this country, certainly among ourselves, our labour unions, our youth formations, our women's organisations, our faith bodies, our social movements as well as the structures of national governance. We have no doubt that the justice of our belief in ensuring the advancement of corrective, political, social and judicial measures in reply to apartheid crimes will ultimately triumph.
4. Our current civil suits target foreign corporations. To the local corporations within the borders of our country we say; we would not prefer to deal with you in a court of law whether it be a foreign or a local court. Our preferences is to call on you to use this moment so the purpose of opening up a meaningful dialogue with our organisations in achieving the following outcomes:
- Acknowledgement of guilt
- Devising public processes of redress
- Searching for a human rights driven process of investment
- Reconstructing economic alternatives in South Africa whose aim is to invert the process of redistribution to make it flow from the rich to the poor
- Constructing models of bringing immediate relief to the pressure of poverty on our people as the basis of ensuring a process of eradicating poverty
5. To this end Khulumani Support Group and Jubilee South Africa are convening a national conference at a date and venue to be announced soon in order to allow the ordinary citizens of our land concretely to prepare an alternative position on reparations based on the stand we have taken in relation to foreign corporations. That specifically applies to South African corporations. This conference will designate a national process driven by the hand of ordinary citizens that will deal with the members of the business world in South Africa. Further it will serve to construct a process for reconciliation that denies the power of the past in our present.
Finally, the conference will designate a process of social mobilisation and political intervention that will not exclude the taking of South African companies to court if they are unwilling to address our platform.
Citizens of South Africa! The entire debt of racial capitalism consists in the extra judicial crimes of the apartheid system.
It also consists in these crimes which carved up our labour life; their mining, industrial and commercial system; their ghettos called locations, townships, homelands; their farm labour policies; their banking and financial systems; their internal debt as of 1993; their crimes against the ecology; their collarboration with the apartheid regime in illegal actions! This is the internal component of odius debt!
To the extent that these matters remain outstanding in the real work done by the TRC, and as concluded today, these continue to constitute the living social deficits caused by racial capitalism. The hour has now struck for the voice and hand of the people to guide our thoughts and actions on the question of reparations!
Issued by the National Executive Committee of Jubilee South Africa
Issued by the National Executive Committee of Khulumani Support Group
MP Giyose - National Chairperson of Jubilee South Africa
Ike Tlholwe - National Director of Khulumani Support Group
Thursday, April 17, 2003
South Africa Will Pay $3,900 to Apartheid Victims' Families
South Africa Will Pay $3,900 to Apartheid Victims' Families by Ginger Thompson
JOHANNESBURG, April 15 2003. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa said today that his government would pay reparations totaling $85 million to more than 19,000 victims of apartheid crimes who testified about their suffering before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In a speech before Parliament, President Mbeki said the family of each victim would receive a one-time payment of about $3,900. That compares with the average annual salary here of about $3,000. "We hope that these disbursements will help acknowledge the suffering that these individuals experienced, and offer some relief," he said.
His announcement followed years of intense political pressure on the government to fulfill its promise to the thousands of victims whose harrowing testimony of mutilation, rape and murder illuminated the dark history of apartheid. That pressure mounted last month when Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate and chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, delivered its final report and expressed concern that the government had let victims down.
The reparations payments fall far short of the $360 million requested by the commission. But Mr. Mbeki cautioned that no amount of money could make up for the suffering. He also said the government had begun broader reforms, including programs to give blacks a greater stake in mining and other industries.
Graeme Simpson, executive director of the Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, called the payments insulting. "There is no magnanimity in this gesture," he said. Apartheid victims like Ntombi Mosikare said Mr. Mbeki's words stung like salt in a wound. Ms. Mosikare, who leads a support group for victims, said they expected more money from the government as an acknowledgment of their suffering. They had also hoped President Mbeki would extend reparations to people afraid to share their stories with the commission.
"We are not putting a price tag on our pain," said Ms. Mosikare, whose 19-year-old brother was killed in a grenade attack against student leaders in 1985. "We only want the country to acknowledge us. What they are giving us is too little." In his speech today, President Mbeki also announced that his government would not issue a general amnesty for the perpetrators of past abuses, saying that would undermine the seven years of work by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In its struggle to usher South Africa through a peaceful transition from white minority rule, this country's first black government empowered the commission to grant amnesty to those who came forward with true accounts of politically motivated crimes. But most of apartheid's architects and enforcers stayed away from the inquiry.
President Mbeki also addressed pressure from South Africa's corporate community by rejecting the commission's call for a wealth tax on businesses to raise reparations funds. He said the government would pay reparations from a special "presidential fund." He invited individual South Africans, both black and white, to make contributions.
In another nod to business interests, Mr. Mbeki criticized lawsuits filed in United States courts demanding apartheid damages from corporations. He said the government would not take part in the lawsuits. Alec Erwin, the minister of trade and industry, said the government would not enforce judgments made in foreign courts.
JOHANNESBURG, April 15 2003. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa said today that his government would pay reparations totaling $85 million to more than 19,000 victims of apartheid crimes who testified about their suffering before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In a speech before Parliament, President Mbeki said the family of each victim would receive a one-time payment of about $3,900. That compares with the average annual salary here of about $3,000. "We hope that these disbursements will help acknowledge the suffering that these individuals experienced, and offer some relief," he said.
His announcement followed years of intense political pressure on the government to fulfill its promise to the thousands of victims whose harrowing testimony of mutilation, rape and murder illuminated the dark history of apartheid. That pressure mounted last month when Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel laureate and chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, delivered its final report and expressed concern that the government had let victims down.
The reparations payments fall far short of the $360 million requested by the commission. But Mr. Mbeki cautioned that no amount of money could make up for the suffering. He also said the government had begun broader reforms, including programs to give blacks a greater stake in mining and other industries.
Graeme Simpson, executive director of the Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, called the payments insulting. "There is no magnanimity in this gesture," he said. Apartheid victims like Ntombi Mosikare said Mr. Mbeki's words stung like salt in a wound. Ms. Mosikare, who leads a support group for victims, said they expected more money from the government as an acknowledgment of their suffering. They had also hoped President Mbeki would extend reparations to people afraid to share their stories with the commission.
"We are not putting a price tag on our pain," said Ms. Mosikare, whose 19-year-old brother was killed in a grenade attack against student leaders in 1985. "We only want the country to acknowledge us. What they are giving us is too little." In his speech today, President Mbeki also announced that his government would not issue a general amnesty for the perpetrators of past abuses, saying that would undermine the seven years of work by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In its struggle to usher South Africa through a peaceful transition from white minority rule, this country's first black government empowered the commission to grant amnesty to those who came forward with true accounts of politically motivated crimes. But most of apartheid's architects and enforcers stayed away from the inquiry.
President Mbeki also addressed pressure from South Africa's corporate community by rejecting the commission's call for a wealth tax on businesses to raise reparations funds. He said the government would pay reparations from a special "presidential fund." He invited individual South Africans, both black and white, to make contributions.
In another nod to business interests, Mr. Mbeki criticized lawsuits filed in United States courts demanding apartheid damages from corporations. He said the government would not take part in the lawsuits. Alec Erwin, the minister of trade and industry, said the government would not enforce judgments made in foreign courts.
New York Times, 16 April 2003
South African government agrees to reparations
So, finally, the South African government has given in and has agreed to grant some reparations to those who appeared before the TRC. According to SAPA, South African President Thabo Mbeki announced, on April 15, that victims of apartheid abuses would receive a once-off final reparations grant of R30,000 (about US $3,842). Mbeki made the announcement during a special debate in parliament on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (TRC) final report. Mbeki said the commission had reported that about 22,000 individuals or surviving family members appeared before it, and 19,000 of these required urgent reparations. They would be eligible for the grant.
Needless to say, the grant will be less that what the TRC suggested, i.e. a grant for 6 years. This means SA government will pay out about $85 mil rather than the $365 suggested by the TRC. Of course, money is not the issue, it cannot bring back the dead. However, I doubt the victim groups will feel satisfied. The government burnt some bridges by delaying for so long (they received the recommendations in October 1998). This has left many feeling angry, and their anger will feed into their views of the current plan. I regret the issue has become about money, rather than acknowledgement - but many still feel they have not been heard. That said, a new chapter in the reparations debate has begun.
Needless to say, the grant will be less that what the TRC suggested, i.e. a grant for 6 years. This means SA government will pay out about $85 mil rather than the $365 suggested by the TRC. Of course, money is not the issue, it cannot bring back the dead. However, I doubt the victim groups will feel satisfied. The government burnt some bridges by delaying for so long (they received the recommendations in October 1998). This has left many feeling angry, and their anger will feed into their views of the current plan. I regret the issue has become about money, rather than acknowledgement - but many still feel they have not been heard. That said, a new chapter in the reparations debate has begun.
Apartheid victims to receive reparations from govt
JOHANNESBURG, 15 April (IRIN) - South African President Thabo Mbeki has announced that victims of apartheid abuses would receive a once-off final reparations grant of R30,000 (about US $3,842), news reports said on Tuesday. The South African Press Association (SAPA) reported that Mbeki made the announcement during a special debate in parliament on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (TRC) final report.
Mbeki said the commission had reported that about 22,000 individuals or surviving family members appeared before it, and 19,000 of these required urgent reparations, SAPA reported. Victims included those who lost loved ones or were subjected to abuses such as torture. "With regard to final reparations, government will provide a once-off grant of R30,000 to those individuals or survivors designated by the TRC," Mbeki was quoted as saying.
"We do so with some apprehension, for as the TRC itself has underlined, no one can attach monetary value to life and suffering," Mbeki added.
For more on the TRC final report go to: http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=32988
IRIN-SA Tel: +27 11 880-4633 Fax: +27 11 447-5472 Email:
IRIN-SA@irin.org.za
Mbeki said the commission had reported that about 22,000 individuals or surviving family members appeared before it, and 19,000 of these required urgent reparations, SAPA reported. Victims included those who lost loved ones or were subjected to abuses such as torture. "With regard to final reparations, government will provide a once-off grant of R30,000 to those individuals or survivors designated by the TRC," Mbeki was quoted as saying.
"We do so with some apprehension, for as the TRC itself has underlined, no one can attach monetary value to life and suffering," Mbeki added.
For more on the TRC final report go to: http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=32988
IRIN-SA Tel: +27 11 880-4633 Fax: +27 11 447-5472 Email:
IRIN-SA@irin.org.za
Sunday, February 20, 2000
Official silence on reparations cheats victims of past conflicts of their rights
A basic value recognised through the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was that it is better to deal with difficulties than to keep them hidden. Yet, when it comes to the issue of reparations for those wronged in the political conflicts of the past, it appears that the government, which is responsible for implementing the TRC recommendations, is choosing to ignore the issue completely. They appear to hope that if they do not say anything their responsibility will be forgotten.
The TRC handed over its reparations proposals, which include both financial and symbolic strategies to assist victims, to government in October 1998. Sixteen months later there has been no substantial debate in parliament. The lack of government involvement has so stifled discussion that the issue is in danger of falling off the agenda. Thabo Mbeki even failed to mention follow up to the TRC in his opening address to parliament
The result of the general lack of government engagement with follow up to the TRC has created a political vacuum. Government is filling this gap with claims that they do not have enough money to make reparations – an odd statement considering they have not investigated possible options for funding. Other people are fond of labeling victims by saying that the struggle was not about money. This conveniently denies victims their legal rights and implies that those who went before the TRC, despite being encouraged to do so, went only for opportunistic reasons.
Still others point out that the 18 000 odd TRC victims eligible for reparations do not represent the majority of those victimised by apartheid. They argue, perhaps correctly, that reparations should benefit entire communities. But this view fails to acknowledge that those who came forward to the TRC did so in good faith and speaking before the TRC was an opportunity available to all South Africans.
The Constitutional Court ruled that amnesty could be granted because reparations, be they broad or specific, will be made available. The UN Economic and Social Council clearly states that survivors and the families of victims of human rights violations have a right to truth, a right to justice, a right to non-recurrence and the right to reparation. There are at least five other international instruments, which talk of the need and right to reparation.
Given this it is sad that the South African government, which is supposedly in sync with international human rights trends, has not even started to review such instruments. This is even more distressing in the context that we have already circumvented the right to justice for many victims through the granting of amnesty.
It is startling that the government has only made one public announcement about reparations since October 1998. The Ministry of Justice released a reactive statement in late 1999 following the victim’s protests to highlight the government’s slow progress on the issue of reparations. Predictably, costs were highlighted in the Ministry of Justice’s statement as a “major constraint” to implementing the TRC recommendations. Perhaps this is a factor, but at this stage, it is pure speculation considering no substantial research has been undertaken into the issue.
 |
| Photo by Old Mate on Unsplash |
The lack of public debate so far runs the risk of reducing the critical question of reparations to the pragmatics of cost before any principles have been set. Step one in the process should be to establish whether survivors of violence have a right to reparation in the first place. To date, most South Africans and government have failed to even attempt to answer this question. The principle must be established, and a thorough investigation undertaken before government starts to say the costs of a reparation programme are too great.
Furthermore, developing countries have borne these sorts of costs before. In Chile - a country with a GDP per capita not very much higher than ours - children of those killed during the military dictatorship of Pinochet have a right to a monthly pension until they reach 25 years of age. For the rest of the beneficiaries the pension is for life. The monthly pension is between R1,400 and R2,000 for the family of the deceased depending on the number of dependants. About 800 scholarships a year are also granted to the families of victims. Victims also get free medical and psychological care. The fiscal burden of this programme is about R120 million per year. The South African TRC proposes R480 million a year - for the next six years - for a country over three times the size of Chile.
Over the next few years, government will find 30 billion rand to buy weapons, and even during the life of the TRC they found about R100 million a year to keep the process afloat, but they seem unwilling to consider finding funds to finish the process.
The political will to assist victims seems to be gone. However, letting sleeping dogs lie is rarely the cry of the victims. Granted reparations cannot bring back the dead, but they are a moral right in any healthy society. In the context of the loss of a breadwinner they can help restore a family to their previous level of subsistence. Importantly, they reaffirm the victim’s dignity – something accusations of opportunism and government lethargy severely undermine. Reparations tell the survivor that they are important and a valued member of society.
A letter from the Truth Commission informing you that you are now officially ‘a victim’, is surely not enough to heal wounds and acknowledge pain. To date, well over 500 people have been granted amnesty in South Africa for murder and torture. Granted, reparations alone cannot fully cancel the injustice of amnesty, but it is a start.
The bare minimum is that we should debate the issue of reparations publicly and honestly. If we then get to the point that we think reparations should not be granted, then we need to have the courage to stand face to face with victims and tell them that, despite their sacrifices, they have been deprioritised in favour of another budget item.
Originally published by Brandon Hamber in the Sunday Independent, 20 February 2000
Brandon Hamber was, at the time, co-ordinator of the Transition and Reconciliation Unit at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)