Sitting in an Internet cafe in Madrid I was deeply moved by the column by Justice Malala in The Times today in which he talks about all the ¨ordinary¨South Africans who have actually done something to assist the foreigners who have been hounded out of their homes by xenophobic mobs. Writes Malala:
I heard of “ladies who lunch” from Sandhurst driving to Alexandra township at night to deliver food to the hungry. I heard of people braving the night to get to the East Rand, where the worst of the barbarism had hit. In schools, shopping malls and churches, ordinary men and women held out their hands to their fellow human beings.
Some of these people are habitually referred to by the president of the country, Thabo Mbeki, as racists, coconuts, unpatriotic and by other epithets. But while Mbeki lunched with international businessmen and fled to Tanzania, these ordinary people — black and white, young and old — were not just twiddling their thumbs.
I received many SMSs entreating me to join the march in central Johannesburg on Saturday to say: “This outrage is not me and it must not happen in my name.” These were ordinary South Africans saying: “I am Nigerian, I am Zimbabwean, I am Mozambican and I am South African.”
But after a few minutes, I started wondering about why it is that while many middle class people have tried to do something, when Jacob Zuma went to Ekurhuleni informal settlement yesterday, he was confronted by 8000 angry ANC supporters railing against foreigners.
The difference is, of course, that those of us who talk about how terribly the xenophobia is, generally have jobs and cars and cellphones. We have food to eat and Internet connections. We generally feel quite chipper about South Africa – despite disappointment in the ANC government – because we have done well.
But those people who shouted at Jacob Zuma do not feel that they have done well. Relative to the white and black middle class, they have not done well, although they are probably better off than the average person in Maputo, Harare or Luanda.
But in South Africa the harsh differences between the ¨haves¨and the ¨have nots¨ are so clear and in your face that it must breed terrible resentment. I imagine it helps to fan the flames of xenophobia and allows the spreading of rumours, of how ¨they¨ are taking our jobs and ¨our¨ woman. And what a very sexist thing to say, my middle class sensibility tells me, people who see woman as belonging to ¨them¨.
Is this perhaps a sign of the chasm between ¨ordinary people¨ who are middle class and that other ¨ordinary people¨ who are poor and dispossessed? This is perhaps the tragedy of the ANC: while the poor give them their vote, the ANC leadership have long since stopped being poor and cannot see or feel the pain of the people who are.
So people still vote for the ANC – who is holding this all together – but they are not listened to and this intensifies the problems we face. Are we destined to drift further apart – a new deracialised middle class from the poor mostly black underclass?
This is very uncomfortable stuff and reminds me of the part in A Dream Deferred where Mark Gevisser recounts how when he interviewed President Thabo Mbeki he seemed terribly disappointed with black South Africans. Are us in the chattering classes now the same and if so, can we do anything about it?
Surely it would be wrong to make sweeping generalisations but the discourse of ¨them¨ and ¨us¨ might just be getting worse, with ¨us¨ celebrating our wonderful Constitution and the values of diversity and respect for difference while ¨they¨ seeth with resentment at the ungodly, foreign values of the Constitution that says foreigners have the same rights as South Africans.
I wish I had answers about how to deal with this, but what I see now looking at my country is not a pretty sight. And it is also a bit scary. How do we create a society with shared values of tolerance and respect? Can this even be done when the disparaties in weatlth are so obscene?
I bet that it is not pretty and also a bit scary, especially when viewed from outside South Africa whilst roaming in a foreign country, being confronted with foreign (and international) questions, views and inputs; and, not having the feel of what the real sentiment on the ground (zero) is. However, even for us who are in SA at the moment, things have got so out of hand that even the leaders appear perplexed at what the reasons for the violence are and how to stop it all, things have become ugly and scary. I am not sure what should happen, but the leaders from all political parties and civil organizations should act promptly, strongly, urgently and swiftly – otherwise our ‘African dream’ would become a nightmare in no time (for some it has already); and, our Constitution would be reduced to a worthless paper tiger, and SA a third (or even fourth) world country that can never be reckoned upon. I agree, however, that it appears as if the ANC leadership has long since stopped being poor and miserable, so trhat they cannt see the pain and suffering of the people from their ivory towers – and unless we do something very urgently about it, chaos will errupt.
Eish this Malala guy… sometimes I wish he was a Russian journalist/political analyst/food critic/newspaper bankrupter/dumb fool. Either way the Russians are not as patient as us.
I personally deal with racism everyday, how the hell does he even begin to thumb-suck that the president unjustly calls people racists. Can anybody here send me evidence of TM using the ‘coconut’? Such is the absurdity of people like this person. I think people like this coconut do more damage to Africans that the perpetrators of xeniphobia. Its like he has a peanut for a brain. Thabo Mbeki has given his whole life to Africans, how does this guy reconcile that he care more for Africans than TM?
He tells us that these people live their lives in ‘Sandhurst’. Don’t people who benefited immensely from the theft of African resources live is such areas? Is he telling us that a meal is supposed to cover for all the rape, the torture, the land grabs, the slaving etc.
Sorry, should read:- Thabo Mbeki has given his whole life to Africans, how does this guy reconcile that these ladies from Sandhurst care more for Africans than TM.
Pierre,
This is a wake up call NOT to our government but to all of us as South Africans.
I once again refer you to the ‘A Country of Two Nations’ speech, delivered 10 years ago. Had we listened and not dismissed TM as a man obsessing on racism, white people would not have much to fear. Like a prophet he told us about a dream deferred. Such a gentlemen he is that we will not be hearing ‘I told you so’s from him.
I do not think its too late though. Here is one suggestion. When farmers hold out form a family fortune from our taxes on the purchase of loooong unused land, we should all (black & white) side with the needs of a community and not the greed farmer.
In the light of ‘Africa Day’ and the xenophobic attacks happening on our door steps I have wondered where the southern African philosophy of ‘Ubuntu’ went. In fact, I will be as bold to say, that I have never seen evidence of it ever being there. The unreliable source of Wikipedia states that ubuntu is a southern African philosophy. How far have we really come to apply this philosophy of appreciating and caring for others when our own people (who as Pierre states are the ones from the townships who do not have the privilege to live a middle class existence) slaughter and set other AFRICANS alight? How far have we come in applying this philosophy when we forcefully want to send other AFRICANS home by burning their houses and robbing them from that little dignity they already have?
I read an article in Friday’s Mail & Guardian entitled ‘Africans do not like one another’ (I cannot find a copy of the newspaper right now; therefore, I do not know who the author is). This article hit the nail right on the head as the author even made examples of African Presidents and Presidential nominees have spoken ill of other African citizens staying in ‘their’ respective countries. He listed Robert Mugabe and Idi Amin as prime examples. The scary part about this is that both these leaders were once considered the heroes of Africa, freeing us from the colonial hold that Europe had on us.
We all saw what happened in Rwanda during 1994, we all see what’s happening in Darfur and we all certainly see what’s happening on our doorsteps in South Africa. So ask ourselves… Where has ‘Ubuntu’ gone?
Khosi
“Don’t people who benefited immensely from the theft of African resources live is such areas? Is he telling us that a meal is supposed to cover for all the rape, the torture, the land grabs, the slaving etc.”
Now now, Khosi. We know you don’t like him, I also don’t like his every statement, but are you being fair to the “Sandhurst” people? Do you know them? Who did they rape? Are you not slyly being racist yourself? Without mentioning race you implied it, no?
Do you also say: That black African rich man. Does he think a meal covers up for his ancestors (or 10th removed cousins) raping other black Africans, torturing our fellow Africans, taking land from others for his family, selling our people as slaves to Arabs?
If someone builds a business employs 300 people treats them well, pays thousands in taxes, which get used to pay social grants and TM’s salary and supports charities. Are they evil for driving around in a 4×4? One such person is leaving the country and do you know who is asking him to stay? The ordinary workers. Who is going to suffer when that business goes to ground? Most business owners I know hardly have a life, that’s how hard they work.
This is not an attack on you Khosi, but on the thought patterns. These are questions I ask myself when looking at the excesses of some of the rich.
But I want to say this is a wake up call YES to government AND to all South Africans. Government is not powerless to do anything, they have immense resources and they have responsibilities, and yet they can’t do everything, which is why we must work together. But government should drive, why do we have leaders if not to lead?
Pierre,
Just wanted to say i enjoyed your blog. I’m a student from Zim and will be going back home to vote. So if i don’t come back i will miss your enlightening views and the various comments and discussions.
Keep it up Prof!
Good luck Mqo, we hope change for the better is on the horizon for your country!
Thanks, but what troubles me is the thinking of people like Khosi, we hope for change in those minds:)
Khosi
That was a JOKE, so please don’t attack me, please!
I did enjoy you point of view.
Sure. But remember it takes all of us to make a world. Think how boring it would be if we all held the same views, nothing to debate, nowhere to progress to. I know you felt Khosi was nasty to you, but just forgive him and keep commenting if you pass by again. It’s when there is no debate any more that we must worry, when people just feed their hate. Such as we saw the one community reacting to Zuma.
Don’t know if you saw the response I made when you lamented your contributions. If you didn’t go look for it!
Mqo
Didn’t see your second post before posting mine.
Mqo,
Do not worry, you Zim brothers are under enough unwarranted attack as is. I will spare you the warranted attacks:)
Be safe, come back. Africa belong to all who live in it.
z,
Have you read the ‘The country of two nations’ speech and the response that it encountered?
Khosi
Thanks for being fairly (”warranted”) nice to Mqo.;)
Sorry, I have bookmarked it, but not yet read it. Will definitely still do so.
Khosi, you always fall back on speeches from the past, now ”The country of two nations’ speech. Like many others, this speech was nothing but hollow words and empty rhetoric. I kind of see the point in Z’s response to your racist attack on the people of Sandhurst. Mqo, don’t you people have access to the internet in Zim at the moment? If that is the case, then things are worse than what it would seem. Anyway, even if you don’t return but remain in Zim after democracy and the rule of law have been restored, please do access blogs such as these via the net? Views from everywhere, but especially from Southern Africa are always welcome.
Rat,
Have YOU read the speech? It is the very dismissal of that speech that lay the ground for the mess we are in.
Please READ the speech.
On Sandhurst people, why am I being racist for stating history?
Could you kindly read the following article, http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=331403&area=Columnist_Fikile_Ntsikelelo_Moya
Khosi, I’ve read it yes. Speeches without actions are just words. It is not that I dismiss any part of the speech as such, but the fact that the speaker (and followers) have not acted thereon clearly indicate that the words were mere lip-service, in other words, nothing but words. One’s walk and your talk should be the same, and actions speak louder than words. As far as Sandhurst is concerned, if the people of Sandhurst have historically committed the deeds you accuse them of, could you reveal your sources? To me yours seems like a fairly generalised view of rich whites living there. Are there no black people living there?
To all, the speech.
http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/speeches/1998/mbek0529.htm
the responses
http://www.dfa.gov.za/docs/speeches/1998/mbek0603.htm
Thanks Mqo for this article – pretty much sums up my feelings at this stage.
Rat,
You are being less than strategic in your thought. The point of that speech is to say that it is possible to transform a country and avoid a Zimbabwe type implosion. However, for that to happen, there needs to be a will amongst the priviledged to finance the uplifting of the unpriviledged. Unlike in Germany, that will amongst the priviledge, generally does not exist in this country.
That speech exposes the weakness of the post-apartheid government to implement material changes in the country without the buy in of the priviledge people in places like Sandhurst. That the main reason for the frustration that people like Khosi have for the priviledged group. White people, in general, will and have continued merily as if apartheid did not happen. It did happen and there is a lot of fixing to do. Hence, I said that the events of the past week have presented the best opportunity for the government to strong arm the priviledge. I am glad though that the priviledge are starting to see what TM tried to show them 10 years ago.
The only other option is to go the Robert Mugabe route. Who will that route serve? Nobody.
Khosi
It’s long but please read EVERYTHING!
I read the speech. I concur with the spirit of the speech, and am committed to that vision. The question is what did government do to implement that vision? The German government did something according to the speech. Could our government not have done more? And if you say, but people didn’t want to go along then I would say bugger those who don’t want to build solidarity, they might as well leave. There are plenty of us who do! And some who you have to drag kicking and screaming before they see the light.
Regarding my argument about racism:
It is not about the stating of history. You did not state history. You made a vague wave reference to things which could be attributed to the history of almost every nation on earth. And by this I am not saying that we should not redress the effects of apartheid. I have been thinking of that solidarity tax as solution on my own without even knowing about historical precedent. So thanks, I am enriched for reading the speech.
But you fail to answer the core of my argument regarding racism. Have you considered what I said? Did you draw the parallels and do you have a real argument against what I said?
Is racism not judging people merely based on their skin colour? Such that even a deed of kindness is not kind any more? That is a worrying line of reasoning.
What you probably should have seen in those Sandhurst people is support for the “two nations” speech. I am sad that you could not see it. These are the people paying the solidarity tax on their own, because the structures don’t exist. Do you not think the very people you criticised are the ones TM referred to here:
“An important contributory factor to this is that there are, indeed, significant numbers of people in our society, including people among the white and Afrikaner community who, by word and deed, have demonstrated a real commitments to the translation of the vision of national unity and reconciliation into reality.”
I understand your frustrations about the past, but blanket views about people are not going to contribute to reconciliation. It is unfortunate (as your people were on the receiving end of oppression), but nation building will cost something from you as well, if that’s what we want. You also need to be freed from race as much as whites. (By this I don’t mean ignoring race, but not using it as sole judgment of a person’s character)
On the one hand we can’t sit at the table with whites not willing to help with upliftment and on the other with blacks not wanting to break with the view of all whites as oppressors. Both need to change. Let’s you and me be that change.
Let’s fight for an end to the grouped mudslinging. Let’s take on those who don’t want to make things right! The actual individuals or the groups who as a whole resist.
Let’s you and me call an act of kindness that what it is. Let’s call an act of evil that which it is. No matter who committed it, there have been enough excuses for evil deeds on all sides. Let you and me take hands, and say we are for the good of all. We choose to forgive and build.
Let us both commit ourselves to reconciliation. We must come together learn about each other, talk with one another. The two nations can’t become one from just one side, no matter which side. We need both. But it starts with you and me.
z,
Please read my response to the Rat
z,
I am busy responding to the racism question. Please be patient with me as something urgent just landed on my desk.
Khosi, Z’s response has made exactly my point. Whilst it is easy to blame the pre-1994 ‘priviledged’ (by the way, not all whites from that era can be regarded as ‘priviledged) for not doing their bit in uplifting the new country, one quickly loses sight of what the post-1994 ‘priviledged’ (including Thabo Mbeki, all ANC leaders – whether in government or not; yourself – with a holiday home!; and others) have also not done. Without setting the example, the speech (the contents and spirit of which I agree with in all material respects) remains empty words by the speaker (and followers). Furthermore, the Sandhurst people have indeed now shown their willingness to do as is required of them. Lastly, frustrations, like the frustrations of modern day victims of crime, should not lead to people (especially intellectuals like yourself) stereotyping other people just because a (in some cases, very small) percentage of their forefathers have committed injustices such as slavery, rape and murder. As Z says, if one has to generalise in such a way, all (black and white) African people can be blamed for history. Finally, stating history (especially if it is only partially correct as in your generalisation of the inhabitants of Sandhurst) is not fixing the problem.
You say:-
‘What you probably should have seen in those Sandhurst people is support for the “two nations” speech.’
Well there is nothing out of the ordinary with what the ‘ladies from Sandhurst’ did. If a natural disaster occurred, I am sure that people would have helped people in distress irrespective of where they come from. What I find objectionable with this ‘ladies from Sandhurst’ issue is that the ‘ladies from Sandhurst’ generally ignored Alexandre until it started burning. Surely most of their maids stay in Alexandre and surely they knew what the living conditions are in Alexandre before the attacks. I am struggling to find that action as one that supports the ‘two nations’ speech when their action came after the explosion that the speech warns us all, of.
Also, I did not criticize people from Sandhurst. My words were: – ‘Don’t people who benefited immensely from the theft of African resources live is such areas?’. Can you find racism or fault in this question?
And then I said: – ‘Is he telling us that a meal is supposed to cover for all the rape, the torture, the land grabs, the slaving etc.’. Here I am referring to all the atrocities that happened during the theft of African resource. The individuals from Sandhurst might not be responsible for these atrocities but it does not mean that they did not, in general, benefit from them. If your argument holds then the Jews would never have been given the compensation that they won because of atrocities against them.
The over-arching point is that Malala was erroneous in using the ‘ladies from Sandhurst’ statement. The mudslinging was meant for Malala, Sandhurst residents were just residual.
On a personal level, actually I lived in Sandhurst before my divorce two years ago. Needless to say, she got the house. Eish, its hard being a man but I hear the bond is strangling her
haha. I am not a racist. I just find the English and especially anyone who thinks their white skins makes them more superior than me an African, deplorable. After leaving JHB two years ago I moved to rural KZN and I met a lot of people that the president refers to. There are people like this across the country. I have a feeling that you are one of those people. But such privileged people are greatly outnumbered by the people who would rather have the status quo. I doubt if we can ‘take them on’ without ending up like Zimbabwe. Remember this might mean more brain drain and it might tick of the likes of Gordon Brown. What I am essentially saying is that the events of the past 2 weeks have made most of us sit up and ask ‘What am I doing to help fellow countrymen?’. From this sentiment government should then come in and propose the same as Germans did.
Unfortunately given the lens that history has given us one cannot run away from grouping people in a manner that TM puts it, i.e: – ‘One of these nations is white, relatively prosperous, regardless of gender or geographic dispersal. It has ready access to a developed economic, physical, educational, communication and other infrastructure.’
Now until black people are firmly a part of this ‘relatively prosperous’ group, our lens as a nation will not result in rainbow colors but just black and white. The common commitment that is required from us forces us to accept that we need to work together in sharing our nations wealth , hence reducing poverty, hence reducing hate and crime. After that we will be on our way to the fixing of our souls and to national reconciliation. Its a though project, but somebody has to do it.
Let me leave you with TM rather distressing view on fighting evil: –
‘a person who does good and does it honestly can always expect to be defeated by the forces of evil…., but it would not be right not to fight just because you know death is coming.’ T.M.
Khosi
My apologises, but i am having difficulties accessing the speech. Could you led me to it?
Mqo, here is the spech
Madame Speaker,
Honourable Members of the National Assembly;
I would like to thank our presiding officers, the whips and all the parties represented in the Assembly for giving all of us the opportunity, to discuss the important matter of reconciliation and nation building for which we have convened this morning.
The 1993 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa ends with an epilogue entitled “National Unity and Reconciliation”.
Among other things, it says:
“This Constitution provides a historic bridge between the past of a deeply divided society characterised by strife, conflict, untold suffering and injustice, and a future founded on the recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful coexistence and development opportunities for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief of sex.”
“The pursuit of national unity,” it continues “the well-being of all South African citizens and peace require reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society.”
For its part, the 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa has a preamble which among other things, says:
“We, the people of South Africa, recognise the injustices of our past… (and) believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.”
“We therefore… adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to heal the divisions of the past.. (and) to improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person.”
In its “Founding Provisions”, this Constitution also says that our Republic has as one of its values “commitment to promote non-racialism and non-sexism.”
I believe that as we discuss the issue of national unity and reconciliation today, we will have to do a number of things.
The first of these, to which I am certain we will all respond in the same manner, is that we should commit ourselves to the pursuit of the objectives contained in these constitutions for a democratic South Africa.
The second is that we will have to answer the question honestly as to whether we are making the requisite progress:
to create a non-racial society;
to build a non-sexist country;
to heal the divisions of the past;
to achieve the peaceful coexistence of all our people;
to create development opportunities for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief or sex; and
to improve the quality of life of all citizens.
Thirdly, we will have to answer the question, again as honestly as we can as to:
whether our actions have been and are based on the recognition of the injustices of the past, and,
whether our actions have genuinely sought to promote the integrated Constitutional objectives of:
national unity;
the well being of all South Africans;
peace
reconciliation between the people of South Africa; and
the reconstruction of society.
In the light of these prescriptions contained in the two Constitutions to which I have referred, let me declare some of the matters to which the government I represent is committed.
We are interested that, as a people, we move as rapidly and as consistently as possible to transform South Africa into a non-racial country.
We are interested that our country lives up to its constitutional commitment to transform itself into a non-sexist society.
We are interested that together, as South Africans, we adopt the necessary steps that will eradicate poverty in our country as quickly as possible and in all its manifestations, to end the dehumanisation of millions of our people, which inevitably results from the terrible deprivation to which so many, both black and white, are victim.
We are interested that we must deal with our political past, honestly, frankly and without equivocation, so that the purposes for which most of us agreed to establish the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, are achieved.
We are interested that our country responds to the call to rally to a new patriotism, as a result of which we can all agree to a common national agenda, which would include:
a common fight to eradicate the legacy of apartheid;
a united offensive against corruption and crime;
concerted action to advance the interests of those least capable to defend themselves, including children, women, the disabled and the elderly;
an agreement about how we should protect and advance the interests of all the different cultural, language and religious groups that make up the South African population;
a commitment to confront the economic challenges facing our country, in a manner that simultaneously addresses issues of high and sustained growth and raising the living standards of especially the black poor;
an all-embracing effort to build a sense of common nationhood and a shared destiny, as a result of which we can entrench into the minds of all our people the understanding that however varied their skin complexions, cultures and life conditions, the success of each nevertheless depends on the effort the other will make to turn into reality the precept that each is his or her brother’s or sister’s keeper; and
a united view of our country’s relations with the rest of the world.
We believe that these are the issues we must address when we speak of reconciliation and nation building. They stand at the centre of the very future of South Africa as the home of a stable democracy, human rights, equality, peace, stability and a shared prosperity.
Accordingly we must attend to the question whether with regard to all these issues and at all times, all of us behave in a manner which promotes the achievement of the goals we have mentioned, and therefore take us forward towards the realisation of the objective of reconciliation and nation building, without which the kind of South Africa visualised in our Constitution will most certainly not come into being.
So must we also pose the questions – what is nation building and is it happening!
With regard to the first of these, our own response would be that nation building is the construction of the reality and the sense of common nationhood which would result from the abolition of disparities in the quality of life among South Africans based on the racial, gender and geographic inequalities we all inherited from the past.
The second question we posed is – are we making the requisite progress towards achieving the objective of nation building, as we have just defined it!
If we elected to answer this question in a polite and reassuring manner, we would answer – yes, we are making the requisite progress.
However, I believe that perhaps we should answer this question honestly and deal with the consequences of an honest response, however discomfiting it may be.
Accordingly, our answer to the question whether we are making that requisite progress, towards achieving the objective of nation building, as we defined it, would be – no!
A major component part of the issue of reconciliation and nation building is defined by and derives from the material conditions in our society which have divided our country into two nations, the one black and the other white.
We therefore make bold to say that South Africa is a country of two nations.
One of these nations is white, relatively prosperous, regardless of gender or geographic dispersal. It has ready access to a developed economic, physical, educational, communication and other infrastructure.
This enables it to argue that, except for the persistence of gender discrimination against women, all members of this nation have the possibility to exercise their right to equal opportunity, the development opportunities to which the Constitution of ‘93 committed our country.
The second and larger nation of South Africa is black and poor, with the worst affected being women in the rural areas, the black rural population in general and the disabled.
This nation lives under conditions of a grossly underdeveloped economic, physical, educational, communication and other infrastructure.
It has virtually no possibility to exercise what in reality amounts to a theoretical right to equal opportunity, with that right being equal within this black nation only to the extent that it is equally incapable of realisation.
This reality of two nations, underwritten by the perpetuation of the racial, gender and spatial disparities born of a very long period of colonial and apartheid white minority domination, constitutes the material base which reinforces the notion that, indeed, we are not one nation, but two nations.
And neither are we becoming one nation. Consequently, also, the objective of national reconciliation is not being realised.
This follows as well that the longer this situation persists, in spite of the gift of hope delivered to the people by the birth of democracy, the more entrenched will be the conviction that the concept of nation building is a mere mirage and that no basis exists, or will ever exist, to enable national reconciliation to take place.
Over the 4 years, and this includes the period before the elections of 1994, we have put forward and sustained the position that the creation of the material conditions that would both underpin and represent nation building and reconciliation could only be achieved over a protracted period of time.
I would like to reaffirm this position. The abolition of the apartheid legacy will require considerable effort over a considerable period of time.
We are neither impressed nor moved by self-serving arguments which seek to suggest that four or five years are long enough to remove from our national life the inheritance of a country of two nations which is as old as the arrival of European colonists in our country, almost 350 years ago.
Let me digress briefly and say something about the ongoing process of German unification.
As the Honourable members are aware, the two post-war German states united into one country in 1990.
After 45 years of division into two states with competing social systems, the German leaders and people understood that, truly to become one country and one people, they too, like ourselves, would have to address the central questions of national unity and reconciliation.
This was despite the fact that here we speak of a people who share the same language, colour and culture.
The seriousness with which the German people treated that process of the promotion of German national unity and reconciliation is reflected, among other things, by the extraordinary volume of resources which the richer, developed West Germany transferred to the poorer and relatively underdeveloped East.
During the first five years of unification after 1990, $586,5 billion of public funds were transferred from West Germany to East Germany to underwrite Germany’s project of national unity and reconciliation. This exceeded East Germany tax revenues for the same period by a factor of 4.5.1.
Further to illustrate the enormity of this effort, these transfers amount to 70 times the size of the national budget which this House is currently debating.
To help finance this extraordinary expenditure, a 7,5 per cent surcharge on individual income tax was imposed in 1991 and extended in 1995 for an unspecified period of time. Correctly and interestingly, this was designated a “solidarity” tax.
It might also be of interest to note that despite the huge flow of German public and private funds into the East, at the end of this first five year period, per capita income in the East still amounted to 74 per cent of income in the Western part of the country.
In our case, the reality is that in the last five years, the naticreased by a mere 10 per cent.
I purposes, taking into account the increase in population, we are spending the same volume of money to address the needs of the entirety of our population as were disbursed to address the needs of essentially the white minority before the democratic transition.
Our own “solidarity tax” was imposed for one year only, accompanied by much grumbling from sone sectors of our society.
Before we digressed to Germany, we were making the point that four or five years are not enough to weld the two nations which coexist in South Africa as a consequence of a long period of the existence of a society based on racism.
To respond to all of this, in conceptual terms we have to deal with two interrelated elements.
The first of these is that we must accept that it will take time to create the material base for nation building and reconciliation.
The second and related element is that we must therefore agree that it is the subjective factor, accompanied by tangible process in the creation of the new material base, which must take the lead in sustaining the hope and conviction among the people that the project of reconciliation and nation building will succeed.
Given the critical importance of the subjective factor, therefore, we must return to the question we posed earlier during this intervention.
That question is – are we all, as the various parties in this parliament and our society at large, behaving in a manner which promotes the objectives of reconciliation and nation building, within which the kind of South Africa visualised in our Constitution will most certainly not come into being!
Again, my own answer to this question would be a very definite – no!
Clearly, it would be irresponsible for me to make such a statement without substantiating it.
Let me therefore cite openly some of the interventions or non-inventions which, over the last four years, have not helped to move us more speedily towards the attainment of the objective of reconciliation and nation building.
Unlike the German people, we have not made the extra effort to generate the material resorces we have to invest to change the condition of the black poor more rapidly than is possible if we depend solely on severely limited public funds, whose volume is governed by the need to maintain certain macro-economic balances, and the impact of a growing economy.
What this throw up, inevitably, is the question – are the relatively rich, who, as a result of an apartheid definition, are white, prepared to help underwrite the upliftment of the poor, who as a result of an apartheid definition, are black
If we are serious about national unity and reconciliation and treat the obligations contained in our Constitution as more than words on paper, we have to answer this question practically.
The South African Revenue Service is engaged in a difficult struggle to ensure that every individual and corporate entity meet their tax obligations.
I am informed that so far SARS has established that something in the order of 30 per cent of our corporations are not registered for tax purposes. These are people, who by honouring their legal obligations, could make an important contribution to addressing the material challenges of national unity and reconciliation.
They deliberately choose not to but will not hesitate to proclaim that the Government has failed to “deliver”.
Many of us in this House find it very easy each time we speak to demand that the Government must spend more on this and that and the other.
At the same time, we make passionate demands that taxes must be cut and the budget deficit reduced.
The constant and, in some instances, dishonest refrain for more funds, in many instances incanted for party political gain, reemerges in our streets as when, only a few days ago, public sector workers marched behind posters which bore the words – “give us more” “give us more”.
In the majority of cases, the call for the transformation of both public and private sector institutions and organisations, in particular to address the issue of racial representativity, has been resisted with great determination.
Indeed, one of the issues of great agitation in our politics is the question of affirmative action.
To ensure that it does not happen, some of what is said that “black advancement equals a white brian drain” and “black management in the public service equals inefficiency, corruption and a lowering of standards”.
In many instances, correctly to refer to the reality that our past determines the present is to invite protests and ridicule even as it is perfectly clear that no solution to many current problems can be found unless we understand their historical origins.
By this means, it comes about that those who were responsible for or were beneficiaries of the past, absolve themselves from any obligation to help do away with an unacceptable legacy.
The current situation suggests that the TRC will be unable to complete its work especially with regard to the full disclosure and attribution of many acts of gross human rights violations.
This will leave the law enforcement agencies with no choice but to investigate all outstanding cases of such violations, making it inevitable that our society continues to be subject to tensions which derive from the conflicts of the past.
Some of our country, including some who serve within the security forces, are prepared to go to any length to oppose the democratic order, including the assassination of leaders and destabilistation by all means.
These include the new well-known story of the alleged involvement of former freedom fighters in plans to carry out a coup d’etat as well as other disinformation campaigns which the intelligence services are investigating involving allegations that Minister Mufamadi is involved in the cash-in-transition robberies, while Deputy Minister Kasrils and myself are responsible for the murder of white farmers.
Last week, I mentioned in the House the negative impact of such events as the recent appearance of the President of the Republic in court, the SARFU saga and the matter of the appointment of the Deputy Judge President of the Natal bench.
I am certain that many of us can cite many examples of interventions which have not contributed to the goal of national unity and reconciliation, including the many instances of resistance to pieces of legislation which seek to transform our country away from its apartheid past.
And yet we must make the point that the overwhelming majority of our people have neither abandoned this goal nor lost hope that it will be realised.
An important contributory factor to this is that there are, indeed, significant numbers of people in our society, including people among the white and Afrikaner community who, by word and deed, have demonstrated a real commitments to the translation of the vision of national unity and reconciliation into reality.
Again last week, in this House, I said that much of what is happening in our country, which pushes us away from achieving this goal is producing rage among millions of people. I am convinced that we are faced with the danger of a mounting rage to which we must respond seriously.
In a speech again in this House, we quoted the African-American poet, Langston Hughes when he wrote – “what happens to a dream deferred?”
His conclusion was that it explodes.
Thank you Madame Speaker.
Khosi
I initially wrote a lot in response, but then wiped it because it would be a long debate and I would be repeating myself. So for now my statements above still stand. A lot of what I pointed out, was the implications of your statements, questions and line of thought.
I will address a few things though:
“generally ignored Alexandre until it started burning”
I hear your argument regarding them only responding after a disaster. But what you fail to see is the willingness of people to help those in need. And the other aspect, that the needs in this scenario were simple and clearly defined. True upliftment of the poor is not simple or easy and a whole other debate. And unfortunately your statements took on the people who care. I lament those who just close their eyes and go on as if nothing happened or is happening.
In regards to the solidarity tax:
You are going to have a worse reaction to a solidarity tax if it is implemented now, it should have been done years ago. Now people will be upset because the perception will be that the tax is really for sorting out the current problems and not for solidarity. This is because we have Eskom problems, home affairs problems, public health problems. Corruption is even more rife than the headlines when I listen to people on the ground. In order to get building permits approved in a certain area, it is commonly accepted practice to include an envelope, such that honest people have a real battle.
A recent example is:
“Only one out of 40 Eastern Cape municipalities has been given a clean bill of health by the Auditor-General for the state of its finances.” http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/News/Article.aspx?id=772395
The difference is that in Germany people could probably also trust the government to spend it appropriately and there was probably “less” chance statistically of corruption in terms of those funds.
I fear our work is now MUCH more complicated. I wish Mbeki had done more to implement the “two nations” speech. At the moment we are facing crisis after crisis.
My apologises again, i never so the link before posting,oops!
Khosi
Just read the speech. I must add that i have heard better speechs from the President than that. Before i post my view i just want to add that you missed a more relevant and forceful response to that speech. Kindly read it,
http://www.da.org.za/da/Site/Eng/Speeches/Speech.asp?ID=32
Z, once again thanks for a thoughtful post. I agree entirely with your line of thinking and argument. Mqo, thanks or the link to that response.
Khosi, once again on the point of hollow words in speeches like this one. TM is obviously someone who likes his own voice, and can therefore keep on arguing in circles. Note that, in this particular speech, after dealing with the German example (which is really comparing apples to pears when our situation is examined), he first asks the question whether “we” (including himself, other members of the government and and other parties represented in the House) have enough to ameliorate the position of the ‘have nots’ from the era of apartheid. … ” That question is – are we all, as the various parties in this parliament and our society at large, behaving in a manner which promotes the objectives of reconciliation and nation building, within which the kind of South Africa visualised in our Constitution will most certainly not come into being!” … Thereafter he answers that question in the negative because ‘whites’ have not done enough . … “What this throw up, inevitably, is the question – are the relatively rich, who, as a result of an apartheid definition, are white, prepared to help underwrite the upliftment of the poor, who as a result of an apartheid definition, are black.” And then an important, but often overlooked concesion in closing as to why, four years after democratic transition, some
achievements have been attained in this dilema. … “An important contributory factor to this is that there are, indeed, significant numbers of people in our society, including people among the white and Afrikaner community who, by word and deed, have demonstrated a real commitments to the translation of the vision of national unity and reconciliation into reality.” Here he almost contradicts his earlier accusal. Also note how cleverly (or ignorantly) he in this concession distinguishes between ‘white’ and ‘Afrikaner’. Do we now have two nations, one white (that is relatively rich and prosperous), and one black (that is relatively poor and suffering)? Who are the other Afrikaners, who is not ‘white’, that contributed to amelioration of the legacies of apartheid? TM’s words! Moreover, one should remember that this speech was given four years after transition, we are now fourteen years down the line (ten from that speech). Are the sentiments expressed by TM still the same? If so, why hasn’t government done something in the mean time to rectify the situation? No, Khosi, as Prof De Vos suggests, it is not only because the (pre- and post-1994) privileged did not do their bit to uplift the previously disadvantaged, but also because the ANC members in power have become so rich and comfy (’cosy’ if you like) in their ivory towers, that we have situations like these in SA today. The leaders have become deaf and blind towards the plight of the poor people, which part of the communty now include a large percantage of white people as well. But, “they while away their hours, in their ivory towers, till they’re covered up with flowers, in the back of a black [nowadays, white] Limousine!”
Z,
I am saying to you that the very essence of the ‘Two Nations’ speech was to expose the government inability to deal with the redistribution without the full support and backing of the privileged. The sad thing is that the privileged chose to go the other way as illustrated by Mqo link to Tony Leon’s reply.
But on TM not doing more to ensure the implementation of the speech. Even with legislation like BEE and AA we are still struggling to address these issues. That should tell you a lot about the will of the priviledged few. In fact people spit and curse at these laws. The privileged would rather pay fines that have black people in their companies, its truly an abomination.
Solidarity tax will work now, simple because we all now understand the dangers that we face if we do not address issues quickly. Perhaps we should trade the retention and strengthning of the Scorpions for solidarity tax, just a thought. One thing is for sure, we dare not fold our arms especially because we are now 10 years late.
Yes, people are willing to help I SEE THAT. All I am saying is that they should not be deviously flaunted on our face just because they happen to come from Sandhurst. This when patriots accross the country have been helping.
Mqo,
Yes he has(delivered great speeches & policies), has he not!
Rat,
Oh so you are an MP!
Khosi
But as noticed, its all about credibility at the end of it all. Does HE (still) have it? Seriously.
Rat,
I repeat myself. The point of that speech was to lay bare the inability of government to address redistribution without the buy in of the privileged.
If you want to argue that the privileged have come to the table, GOOD LUCK.
Ha, Ha, Ha! Not quite, Khosi. But a keen interest in law (including constitutional and human rights law) and politics; a yearning for justice and equality (curing the injustices of the past); and, liking to play ‘Devil’s Advocate’ and getting others to swear and sweat, definitely.
Mqo,
Well credibility is a subjective word. I guess Osama Bin Laden would have credibility within a group of people who find George Bush lacking in credibility. And visa versa.
But I must say that scanning through the blogs, his approval rate is actually climbing even in light of the past two weeks. There was a time when I thought he seemed dusted.
Khosi, no, the previously disadvantaged (the under-privileged) have come to the table, where the gravy flows like wine. Thanks for the good luck wishes.
Mqo
Sometimes the posts that came later are injected further up. I definitely read everything, but also missed the links for the speech and the comments.
Did you understand the Afrikaans in the DA speech?
Khosi
I just read the comments to the speech as you posted and am humbled and saddened by some of the responses. I do not believe that ignoring the white/black separation will help things along, but we could do with an upbeat positive attitude in approaching it.
Mouse
Thanks. We need to turn the tide.
All
How can we turn the tide?
Z, good question. Perhaps we can start focusing on that in this debate, rather than praise-singing (criticising) others. But for that, I think we should get ourselves into another mode.
Uh, I just saw a string of posts, before my last message. It will take me a while to read, so I apologise in advance if something is inappropriate in my last msg.
I think its very important that we criticize(praise-sing) so that we get the debate started in context.
Z
No, but getting a translation from a beautiful Afrikaner friend (Go RSA!). If you know please don’t tell me, I need an excude to see her That is also the other reason why I reserved my full response, after all it was previously noted by the Presi…sorry, Khosi, that we should not just read the heading and jump to a conclusion.
Khosi, I agree, but usually such actions let us become side-tracked. Let’s think about the solutions now?
Mqo,
I think most of this country suffer from reading the headline. Do not sweat it, change it.
Z: “How can we turn the tide?” – I think that I have already made the point below in one of the previous blogs below that, first that is needed, is stricter control of the government. Read my comments (also read all my further responses to what others have said) below at http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/?p=558#comments
“Yes, people are willing to help I SEE THAT. All I am saying is that they should not be deviously flaunted on our face just because they happen to come from Sandhurst. This when patriots accross the country have been helping.”
I agree that everyone’s contribution is welcome. But I stand by my criticism of the way you chose to indicate your feelings. And I also stand by my respect for you as a person and your opinion.
I like the trade the scorpions idea, maybe they can oversee the tax being properly utilized!
But I have a question: How did government determine the buy-in of the privileged? Surveys? Referendum? The media?
I am also glad TM mentioned the rising tide of entitlement, such as the University of Venda example. How do we stem that tide? I am so saddened to hear of students trashing the university libraries, ripping apart books, while protesting. The very books that should teach them to make a better life. There almost seems to be a certain “protest” culture in SA lending itself to definition.
An abomination I agree, but a proper BEE and AA debate is beyond this thread.
Mouse
I remember that thread. The only thing I worry about which you and Wessel don’t seem to is Cosatu and the SACP see my comments in that same thread.
Just look at Cosatu and SACP response to Xenophobia. Yes they condemn it, well done, not really rocket science, but they seem to focus on blaming government policies, not really addressing Xenophobia. They drove around townships proclaiming a message incredibly similar to an election campaign.
The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa in contrast, focused on calls for protection and a show of solidarity with their foreign brothers.
Cosatu will also this week assess whether the ANC is truly moving left or not. And according to one article, don’t know how true, Zuma’s campaign of assurance to foreign investors of business as usual with economic policies.
Maybe they go at it on their own?
Also the article I mentioned earlier on the health of Eastern Cape municipalities also makes a telling statement:
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/News/Article.aspx?id=772395
“Nombembe commended Cacadu’s mayor, Mlungisi Mvoko, for having shown commitment to improving the municipality’s finances despite not having a financial background.
When Cacadu received a disclaimer last year, Mvoko made a commitment to Nombembe that he would monitor internal audits, and demand regular updates from the audit committee.
Nombembe said Mvoko’s commitment had paid off.
“The mayor did not have to convert himself into an accountant. All he had to do was exercise an effective leadership role and to instil discipline, (which resulted in) impressive results for the municipality .
“If that model can be replicated throughout the Eastern Cape … we will see better results than we have seen this year,” said Nombembe.”
What the commitment of one guy at the top can do!
But then we have so few of them.
Encore z, encore!
I just want to mention that I would not be glad if Cosatu won after going on their own (if they do). But more parties on the landscape could help politically as many here have stated.
Cosatu said in run up to Polokwane that the alliance would not survive another Mbeki term. Maybe if they don’t see Zuma being their champion, they might just do it.
Mqo
It’s time to visit that lovely lady and get the piece translated so you can add your voice!
Z, I to an extent agree with your take on Cosatu and SACP, perhaps because they have been too involved in politics (in the Tripartite Alliance) – and even corruption – rather than with the interests of the people (labourers), whereas NUM has been more pro-active. But then again, isn’t NUM affiliated to / alligned wih Cosatu? That aside, the point I think Wessel and I wanted to make is that organizations like trade unions and NGO’s (’civil society’) need to play a stronger role because government at the moment appears quite perplexed at the problem. A good friend of mine (black) just told me that last week in Germiston he had to make a u-turn under police protection when a blood-hungry crowd were noticed playing soccer with the head of someone who has been decapitated moments earlier in Xenophobic violence. Gruesome! This is the kind of thing that should shock government into action, but to no avail at present (I read however that government says that it now has the situation under control.)
They are affiliated with Cosatu as far as I know. And yes they should play a valuable role (and I did see that as you main point), I fear they have been flexing their muscles too much and are starting to get a big head!
The soccer thing is indeed shocking. No HORRIFYING! You can argue all the reasons for the Xenophobia, but none explains the lack of value for human life. As I mentioned earlier, far less violence (such as in the Cape) would have had the same effect.
Cosatu is an umbrella organisation of which NUM is the most powerful member. Cyril Rhamaphosa, Vavi, Gwede Mantashe (my favourite) and most leader of Cosatu come from NUM.
Cosatu and their member Unions are far from perfect, but the very nature of their membership make them much more responsible and responsive. A union leadership is not voted in once every 5 years. It’s a constant job looking after the best interests of their members. They not only interact, but work next to their constituencies every day.
In South Africa, because business has been so mercenary and government non existent our unions have had to play roles that other unions across the world do not. What role? The role of nurturing domestic business.
In the Cape, the researcher and senior official for the Clothes and Allied Worker Union is a guy called Etienne Vlok. Etienne’s union has been working on all manner of schemes including organising large international fashion shows to grow their sector, manufacturing for the fashion industry.
It’s the union that put up websites about the skills and facilities available, it’s the unions that lobby the government. All things that governments do in other countries.
Last year I attended a NUM conference. NUM had appointed the Sociology of Work Unit at Wits to look at declining levels of solidarity and ethinic tensions at the mines. The research was conducted by Andries Bezuidenhout. They were very concerned about the evidence he presented and I can garantee you that they took action. That is what I call proactive thinking what this government so clearly lacks. NUM obviosly cares for its members.
Recently the unions organised a meeting about growing industry in this country. One of the delegates asked” “How did the Afrikaners do it?”
That i can safely say, is not a question you will hear from the racially exclusive ideological black hole that is the ANC.
Solidariteit has recently conducted ground breaking research showing that the gaps between executive remuneration in this country, and what ordinary workers get is the highest in the world. Theirby strengthening worker’s hands in wage negotiations. This is the kind of thing that labour departments normally do.
And I am not sure if you aware, but Solidariteits website, has been voted the top Union website in the world. And Numsa was also right up there.
http://mhambi.blogspot.com/2007/02/solidariteit-and-numsa-top-of-union.html
As to the issues of ‘whites contributing’
I said this before, Khosi I can assure you that white South Africans will jump through many hoops and climb many mountains if they knew that their actions would contribute to a successful country.
Problem is the ANC has squandered that oh so valuable currency namely trust.
Mbeki and the ANC’s definition of whites helping the country is – give us your money, your land and don’t moan.
Firstly why use race and not class? Why sully the debate? Secondly, the best way the privileged can contribute to make the lives of the poor better is through doing management and training. (Yes you can tax them too, and you can do that every month.)
You can give your money once or your land once. But that does not mean the recipient can use it productively.
The big problem is of course that the ANC of Thabo prefers incompetents if the privileged are white.
z I think you have an irrational fear of the unions and I think you should try and attend their meetings. It’s refreshing. It’s professional and non racial.
PS: Pierre to argue that we can’t stop people from crossing the border is to use an impolite border ’snert’. But since were polite on this blog these days, I’ll say its wrong. No country, not even the UK which is an island successfully stops illegal immigration. But we have in the past and we can now slow it down dramatically.
If we can’t do that, I’m afraid theres no point in talking about anything else. We might as well give up now. No developmental state with our challenges would cope with having an ever growing pool of people to pull out of poverty.
What’s more, if SA was to be successful in helping its poor, the pressure to immigrate here would just grow.
I no its not a trendy issue with lefties, immigration control. But we live in the real world. If were serious about the future we need to be serious about that.
> is to use an impolite border ’snert’.
I’m obviously not concentrating and typing to fast, too much to say, that’s the problem.
I meant ‘is to use an impolite term ’snert’.”
Wessel, thanks for a good run-down on the virues and capacities of the SA Trade Unions, and their capabilities to solve problems like those we have at hand here. I agree. Also with your insight on the ANC’s view of whites contributing and the willingness of whites to do so. As far as your comments on illegal immigation is concerned, I would like to add the following. If we can’t stop illegal border-crossing at all, why bother having borders and sovereignty at all?
Thanks Wessel. An enlightening contribution. Maybe I should have been more specific in my worries. Vavi worries me a lot, maybe irrationally, but I welcome input in this regard. The SACP worry me. And as I said above I was impressed with NUM.
Maybe all my fears are irrational. Maybe someone could convince me that their socialist ideas will solve our problems, but that has not yet happened.
Solidarity is doing some amazing things, the following is from Zuma’s speech to them:
“You support 25 feeding schemes across the country, exclusively black. You distributed 2000 school cases and stationery packages to school children, more than 50% of whom were poor grade 1 learners. We congratulate you for such patriotic duty, which is an example of nation building in practice.”
Note Khosi: “exclusively black”
“But since were polite on this blog these days”
(;
I believe you are more likely to get people to hear your point of view, if you are willing to politely listen to theirs and try to understand others’ point of view. Shouting does not make anything you say more true.
But of course it is a mostly free country, so everyone can mostly say what they want to and how they want to. Don’t let me hold you back!