Sideview

An approach for community participation in local government evaluation

2012-01-08T05:49:00.000Z

I work as a consultant in South Africa. While most of my evaluation work has related to poverty reduction initiatives, I have also undertaken evaluation work on multi-year HIV and Aids programme.

The background to this 'evaluation insight' is the numerous ‘service delivery protests’ that occur each year in South Africa. Despite key government departments’ developmental programmes, people in communities take to the streets to demand that local authorities address their needs more effectively.

This ‘evaluation tip’ relates to mass participation in evaluation. I have written on participation and good governance (for example at http://tinyurl.com/ckxbnnf). Like many, I am a fan of Robert Chambers, the leading light on participatory methodology. But whereas his work is usually located in the rural and village context, I have used the principles of participation in the urban/industrial context. For the Office of the Premier of South Africa’s Western Cape Province, I ran a planning process involving well over 150 staff members. And while working at Deloitte Consulting, I conducted a structured mass planning session (strategy fine-tuning) at one of three key terminals at the Richards Bay Port. In developing this 'evaluation tip', I also cross-reference to approaches such as Appreciative Inquiry and People’s Participatory Planning, both of which I have encountered in the course of consulting and organisational development work. I also reference to Future Search methodology which balances a respect for diversity with notions of 'common ground'.

Now I am advocating for the use of a ‘large group process’ in public sector evaluation processes, with a particular focus on local government.

I suggest a 3-day engagement process – a process informed by prior field research and due community-level consultation. Day 1 is devoted to community representatives defining their own development indicators; it also allows for government to present its priorities and key indicators for the period under review.

During Day 2 participants are involved in a structured assessment of outcomes using participatory methods. The process includes the introduction of a rubric and a visualized scoring process. It also entails eliciting examples, substantiation and debate during group work. Given South African realities, the major focus of discussion will be on whether local government ‘delivery’ has brought positive changes to communities or to people’s lives.

Day 3 will feature 30 to 40 people, working more intensely. The participants will be representatives from sector groups, most likely 2 persons per sector. Using focus group methods, these participants will make comment on either a draft evaluation report or a specially prepared report on the outcome-level performance of the local authority. At a closing ceremony, the Mayor or municipal manager will thank delegates and clearly state how the community feedback will be used in the evaluation process.

The standard design allows for 250 participants, but with careful planning and the right facilities, the number can be increased to 300. Particularly during Day 2, the large-scale consultation will feature work in sectoral sub-groups representing, for example, youth, entrepreneurs/local businesspersons, people dwelling in informal settlements and homeowners. Sectoral groups are complemented by at least two, but often more, groups constituted on a 'max-mix' basis. All groups, which may also be termed 'table groups', will have facilitation support and will comprise about ten people. The particular perspective and experience of women is elicited during the deliberations of all sub-groups. It is important to note that the use of sectoral groups is not so they can focus on sectoral themes. Rather, the aim is to allow the plenary to see if or where scoring differs based on the experiences of certain sub-groups.

This kind of mass participation in assessing developmental outcomes can/should be a critical input local government evaluation. Such input would no doubt form part of a wider process using multiple data sources. Insight: The mass participation process described is designed to enhance dialogue between community and government representatives. In the Day 3 activity, community representatives will engage with government data and the official viewpoint regarding achievements in the period under review. During the Day 1 sessions, government representatives will have the opportunity to hear an undiluted community view of development priorities; they will also hear what indicators matter most to significant numbers of community members. Insight: Community participation methods used in planning can be adapted to ensure decisive grassroots input into official local government evaluations.

(Please feel free to comment on this post.)

World Aids Day - a time to unite to ensure ongoing commitment

2011-12-27T21:34:00.000Z

HIV and Aids must not fall off the radar – the issue is as pertinent and urgent as ever. When the Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi was appointed after the last South African elections, he drove the national programme with admirable focus and commitment. He set bold targets for counselling and testing and for increasing the numbers of people on treatment. He confirmed and consolidated the end to denialism and ensured the revival of the National Strategic Plan as a platform for action.

The attention in the public space shifts and changes all the time; this causes particular problems for those working directly on the challenges and impacts of HIV and Aids. As he assumed office, the Health Minister powerfully foregrounded HIV and Aids and government's key strategies. Then, for a time (especially during 2010), the national discussion was dominated by the proposed National Health Insurance. HIV and Aids featured somewhere in those debates, but not centrally so. In the current period, society and the public are not being galvanised to continuing action on the issue. Aids co-ordination seems weak and, of late, there is little vigilance in ensuring steady resource flows to organisations and community groups dealing with the pandemic. This then is the challenge: HIV/Aids sometimes recedes into the background as far as the national agenda is concerned.

Apart from the high numbers of people requiring treatment and the need for ongoing prevention work, there are a range of crucial issues. One of those is funding. where the Global Fund commitments in the past failed to meet minimum needs and requirements. The latest blow has been the announcement, in December 2011, that the Global Fund will face severe cutbacks this year and predicts a negative budget for 2012. This is due to governments everywhere reneging on their commitments – and short-sightedly so; they are making the political choice to targeting HIV/Aids funding for cutbacks, instead of dealing with excess and misgovernance, as part of their response to the global recession. Another element of this has been the failure of African governments to meet the Abuja commitments, that is, to spend at least 15% of their overall budgets on health.

Because I have worked in behaviour change communications, I place particular emphasis on this aspect of HIV/Aids work. No doubt the counselling and testing operations, the plans to ensue greater use of male circumcision, increased access to treatment and emphasis on stemming mother to child transmissions are critical. However, I have a particular concern about the decline of attention and resources to communications interventions. The latter kind of intervention forms an important adjunct to the other programmes, and is key to ensuring a proper and holistic societal response – including a reduction in stigma and discrimination.

This World Aids Day needs to see a re-dedication to a holistic response to HIV and Aids. It should also be used as a platform to fight attempts – in terms of the choices nation states make as they deal with economic crises – to cut back on funding for global HIV and Aids programmes.-

Nationalisation should be discussed together with inequality

2011-10-27T09:09:00.000Z

I recently attended a conference on ownership, inequality and class (first week of August 2011). What a fantastic idea to combine these themes. All of a sudden the attention is shifted away from ownership (alone) and directed to more fundamental questions. The attention shifts to outcomes, that is, the issue of the critical economic and social outcomes from ownership arrangements and changes. The conference was co-ordinated logistically and otherwise by SPII but was also initiated by government (its Economic Development Department) and the Frederick Ebert Stifting.

This conference firstly took stock of the need for ownership changes per se. Ownership change is an important imperative in our society. A social consensus is in place that in areas such as land and in the corporate world – “the commanding heights of the economy” – meaningful changes in ownership patterns are reqiured. The RDP policy document of 1994 argued that a central objective was to "deracialise business ownership and control completely". The telling verdict, however, is that, both in terms of BEE and in terms of significantly increasing the level of black ownership of land, there has been astonishing lack of progress.

Secondly, the conference called for ownership changes to be leveraged to accelerate greater inclusiveness in the economy. It asked: how can we rearrange patterns of ownership in a manner that contributes (a) in substantial ways to reducing inequality and socio-economic exclusion and (b) that ensures sustained or increased economic vibrancy?

The conference looked at the overall economy and at key areas. It diagnosed broad-based BEE, examined state-owned enterprises, probed co-operative ownership, reviewed land and agriculture and asked searching questions about banks and other financial institutions. Zooming in to household and the community-based levels, the indaba also reviewed transfers such as RDP houses and ownership formation through SMMEs.

It noted that in all cases, regardless of who owns, more incisive strategies are needed in terms of sharing benefits as well change in business and operating practices, both with the aim of addressing the rampant inequality in our society.

Clearly ownership changes can be a major lever for bringing new social segments as players into the economy – the conference favoured a broader base of ownership. But ownership change on its own is insufficient. In many cases, sectoral practices and issues such as access to markets, competitive practices, supplier policies as well as cost of finance needed to be addressed. Ownership change often also needs to be accompanied by a reengineering of the upstream and downstream factors that impose a constraining or liberating effect on economic functioning.

At another level, economic restructuring was required, delegates agreed, and the state needed to play a role to encourage investment in key sectors, to incentivise labour based practices, to address spatial and gender issues, and to facilitate access to global markets. At community-based level, strategies were needed to ensure that relevant capabilities and empowerment were present to allow benefiting households to use their new assets in dynamic ways and thereby to improve their economic position.

Much of the debate around nationalisation can be misplaced. This is particularly so to the extent that participants fail to discuss outcomes related to the urgent need for reduction of inequality and for revved-up job creation. The conference has, correctly, sought to link the imperatives of ownership change with the drive to create a stable and sustainable society by driving economic inclusion.

It is hoped the conference organisers will, in greater detail and in a more formal way, release information about the conference in the near future. Such an announcement will also, through the proper channels, indicate the names of all the speakers at this important conference.

Against the backdrop of the conference, the following points can be made:

a) All options/types/models of ownership need to be considered. State ownership is not taboo. Instead of muzzling a proposal for state ownership, time could better be spent debating how state ownership might or would contribute to inequality reduction or economic growth. We could also be usefully grappling with how government, donning the ownership mantle, will do better than current owners to share benefits with immediate communities (and more widely), and to take responsibility for environmental impacts.

b) It should be noted that the private sector (investors) are a hardy bunch and have been known to find ways of doing business under a wider variety of policy circumstances and regimes. The capitalists have remained to do business in situations where severe import controls are applied, have in the old days stayed put despite apartheid constraints and have easily entrenched themselves where states own vital mineral resources. Major capitalist players have even helped communist governments to industrialise their economies. They are not easily fazed. But the following is also true and an important a consideration: capitalist investors dislike uncertainty – it interferes with their adaptive capacity and leads to hesitation and erratic capitalist behaviour that causes problems all around. It is therefore important to clearly set out the way forward on issues such as land and ownership of the mines, regardless of the strategic direction selected.

c) Social and economic inequality requires different strategies at different levels. It underlines the role of the state, foregrounding the need for a developmental state – one with the capacities, knowledge and strategic capabilities to intervene through leadership, regulation, major resource mobilisation, long-term planning, investment in key areas, clear-guided macro-economic policies and other means. As far as households and communities are concerned, ownership can be a life changing benefit; at other times it can, especially in the context of joblessness and lack of income, be a poisoned chalice bringing burdens and costs that further erode quality of life. In this regard, issues of timing and support systems are critical.

d) South Africa needs to urgently accelerate planned and intended redistribution through ownership changes and other means. In areas such as land and agriculture, for example, failure to remove the bottlenecks to more rapid redistribution creates conditions for violent confrontation (in the future). In addition, BEE policies and strategies need to be critically reviewed and re-engineered to ensure more meaningful and sustainable change in the economy as well as greater economic inclusion of black people. Growing inequality is currently the greatest threat to our democracy.

Serageldin: Participation, equity & social cohesion are needed to create a just world

2011-07-28T07:38:00.000Z

During his visit (21 to 23 July 2011) to South Africa and the Nelson Mandela Foundation to give the 9th Annual Lecture (23 July), Professor Ismail Serageldin addressed a wide range of issues about how society might organise itself to ensure that dignity and justice was more universally shared among people.

His visit came at a time of great uncertainty. At a time when the world is plagued by mis-governance, by concerns about energy and climate, by multi-dip recession as well as by persistently high levels of inequality and poverty. It is a time when many feel the world has lost its way and that new directions are needed to ensure progress towards a better, more sustainable and just world.

To address these, Serageldin favours a return to values. He recommends this not as an anodyne response to the challenges; he adds substance and meaning by referencing values to ‘higher purpose’ and by providing examples of possible strategic shifts. He punts notions such as democracy, justice and fairness as well as respect for diversity. In his application of democracy, he agitates for wide citizen participation; he also calls for majority decisionmaking to be preceded by debate and careful listening to the views and perspectives of minorities. His views on justice lead to trenchant critique of the dominant (free market) economic model. He says fairness in terms of opportunity (equal opportunity, so to speak) is insufficient; attention has to be given to equitable outcomes as well. In valuing diversity, Serageldin notes that all nations are becoming “rainbow nations” and should deal with this reality positively by embracing diversity. He invokes the notion of cosmopolitanism. He waxes nostalgic when he refers to Alexandria in the 19th century when cosmopolitanism reigned supreme and Greeks, Syrians, Italians, French, British, Armenians, Turks and Arabs shared an Egyptian identity.

More in an interview than the lecture, Serageldin applied his views regarding justice to the economy and economic issues. He expressed concern about a situation of too little regulation in a context of monopoly capital. Even though he cautions against overzealous regulation that could stifle entrepreneurialism, he argues that the global economic malaise calls for a restating of the “central” role of the state. In his lecture, he noted that a good social system would balance a system of reward and profits ('equality of opportunity') with one of basic rights (some equality of outcome). Seemingly addressing himself directly to the capitalists, he states that excessive inequality is inefficient and corrosive, and ultimately leads to “class war”.

Serageldin, in the lecture per se, delivered at the Linder Auditorium in Johannesburg, underlined the importance of social cohesion. He cautions, as far as trends go, that in certain cases the pull is as strong in the opposite direction. In this regard, he refers to the splitting up of Czechoslovakia to accommodate the aspirations of Czechs and Slovaks. In his view, social cohesion refers to the interconnectivity between human beings. This may of course be taken further, especially in our situation, where we may gain if the interpretation of social cohesion is closely aligned to social capital. In such an interpretation, the bonds between people are harnessed to maximise strategies and efforts for addressing social problems.

Serageldin ended his lecture on a rousing note, extolling the role of youth in social change. Pointing to the decisive role of youth in the Arab Spring as well as in the use of technology to connect and access information, he lauds youth as a social grouping and looks to it as a key to a positively transformed future. He calls on youth to continue to play a key role in creating a so-called “new country” based on justice and social cohesion.

The professor’s speech has many points of application for South Africa. South Africa is renowned for promoting the rainbow nation idea and for getting diverse groups to accept a shared political settlement, but the society remains fractured along racial and other lines. Much work needs to be done, not just to ensure that a warm fuzzy feeling is sustained, but in terms of getting people to deploy connectivity and joint action on issues that matter. The government, through the Department of Arts and Culture, has prioritised a programme of social cohesion. It has launched a campaign called 'South African @ Heart: Working together to build a Caring Nation'.

Issues of the economy are also pertinent. At present various social forces, including key national organisations of the youth and workers, are calling for fundamental changes in the economic system so that inequality is reduced and for systems & processes that reproduce marginalisation to be dismantled. There are also calls – in South Africa and globally – for greater accountability in business for excess, for damage to the environment, for factors that perpetuate social exclusion, for corruption and for reckless actions that damage entire economies.

Serageldin’s points about ‘participation’ as a way of deepening democracy also resonate. South Africa has been through a period in which the formal mechanisms of democracy have been prioritised. However, alongside this (necessary) consolidation, we have seen growing evidence of pockets of popular disenchantment that accompanied by feelings of marginalisation and disempowerment. Our society can only move forward if we encourage, nurture and support additional means of civic participation. Indications are South Africa as a country needs to support, endorse and value the existence of vibrant forums, associations and organisations – ones in which citizens make their voices heard to a greater degree. This is critical if South Africa is to move forward to greater achievements and to more effectively dealing with challenges such as poverty, inequality, joblessness and crime.

June 16 2011: Let us support a wider range of youth programmes

2011-06-19T14:32:00.000Z

Youth development is not just about programmes that facilitate access to jobs - as important as that is. It is also about endorsing youth in their organisational and political activities as well as supporting social programmes that advance the role of youth as active citizens. Read my views on this at http://sacsis-org-za.win24.wadns.net/site/article/688.1.

Lewin's Stones Against the Mirror is a milestone

2011-05-24T06:50:00.000Z

The book 'Stones Against the Mirror' is another in a slew of South African books that look back on the past through the autobiography/memoir lens. The motivation for this kind of book, one takes it, is an author's need for things that happened in the past to be better understood or to ensure the past (or bits that are important to the writer) is not forgotten. In other cases, the autobiography or memoir – as someone once said – is a case of the writer saying … “see what I went through”.

Hugh Lewin was part of an underground resistance movement, the African Resistance Movement. Made up of mostly white activists, they deployed violence to try to prevent the white electorate from sinking into a false complacency. All this was at a time of apartheid repression, when black movements and voices were being silenced. The strategy was to launch dynamite attacks on installations, avoiding human injury or death. In 1964, Lewin went to jail for 7 years after Adrian Leftwich gave Lewin's name to the Security Police, and after Leftwich and John Lloyd testified against him.

Hugh Lewin wrote his book for particular purposes, not explained but apparent. The reader is left with the clear impression that the book is a part of the same search for healing that is covered in the latter part of the book. He wants to deal with certain deeply felt and unresolved things; he wants to slay some demons.

On the cover, it is noted that the book is about friendship. Actually, the book is better described as being about betrayal, about Lewin's crippling sense that he was betrayed by someone very close to him, about his long interrgunum of bitterness, and about his quest for the final 'closure' through making peace with his (former) buddy. Thus the book is in many senses Lewin's own TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Committee) process - a painful process of retelling what took place and exorcising the ghosts.

What is great about the book (or what i like about the text)? First, Stones Against the Mirror is powerful in its interiotiy and subjectivity. There is the broad canvas of politics (a further filling in of the resistance history); but the spotlight is trained on personal issues, on interactions and on growth and development of Hewin and his relationships. Under discussion, at times in unflinching ways, are personal trauma, bitterness and of the psychological process called healing. Secondly the book adds to the historical record. It covers a period – and a strand of resistance – that is often missed when the commemorations and reflections are done. Thirdly, it contains some brutal honesties (critical reflections). For example, he provides exacting reflection about the nature of sabotage activities, how naive and adventurous some aspects of this were and how, when the clampdown began, Lewin had no escape plan to deal with such an eventuality. Fourthly, the book adopts some sharp viewpoints about race and how race functioned in society. Discussing attitudes in boarding school, the outlook of his father, etc., Lewin shows how racist thinking permeated the society. He takes the black consciousness view when he notes that, in such a context and for someone in the privileged white group, to claim no involvement in racism would be very difficult: only deliberate action as opposed to neutraliity was needed.

But the book also raised a number of issues at different levels, some of them controversial. (Some of these issues were also alluded to in the discussion at the book launch in Johannesburg on 9 April 2011. In the comment below, I refer to some of the comments made there.)

Constructing what happened: The book demonstrates the extent that history is a construct. In this sense, writing history is both non non-fiction and the work of the imagination. This book shows how difficult it is to achieve agreement as to 'what happened'. The angles regarding what occurred are many – the security police, the court record, Leftwich's writing (some of it self-serving) and now Hugh Lewin trying to piece it all together so many years later. [Writing about happenings, conversations and reactions so many decades ago is extremely difficult - who can remember exactly what was said and, in all cases, the precise sequence of events? There is a great deal of making up. Normally the process is rendered more credible through corroboration of stories and cross checking of facts. However, in a tale filled with such contestation and conflict such as Lewin's, constructing the story appears to be a far more difficult and charged process].

What is left out: “Stones” is interesting for what is left out or what the book is silent about. For example, Lewin does not indicate what his current attitude to John Lloyd is, and why thelatter is not included in Lewin’s 'making peace' process. At his book launch, Stephanie Kemp, a struggle stalwart and a former ARM activist, raised this very issue; Lewin responded that it was Lloyd who wanted nothing to do with him.

Forgiving: The book raises the vexed question of 'forgiving' – what is it, who is entitled to it and whether forgiveness can be deployed regardless of the perpetrator’s attitude or active participation in it? Hugh Lewin himself refuses to describe his interactions with Leftwich and Viktor as being about forgiving them. For him, it is much more about his own process of dealing with nightmares and letting go (of bitterness?, of anger?) and of moving forward. There are contradictions between the TRC mode and the approach he adopted in relation to the two: Lewin makes peace with the two without requiring full explanations in return.

Each reader of this book must answer (for themselves) the question as to whether this book is a full unburdening or whether they judge it as unsatisfactory because of the gaps. It is true, as Claudia Braude raised with him at his book launch, that Lewin is stingy on detail in his description of the meeting with Leftwich? (This meeting is a key focal point of the book). It is also true that the book is silent about his feelings regarding John Lloyd today. While readers always want “all” to be told, Lewin may retort that he has never punted the book as being about ‘truth’ or the whole story, but about friendship.

I have a dual response to Stones Against the Mirror. One part of me, the one that espouses intellectual rigour, asks for more about this process of closure (the how, the why); that same part joins in to highlight gaps, silences and inconsistencies. Another part of me applauds this work as a milestone, and says: The book is a wonderful piece of recollection. It foregrounds a neglected strand of resistance during an important historical period. This second part of me asserts that Lewin should be saluted for having given so much of himself while writing ‘Stones” (that in a book that stands out for highlighting the personal/psychological while also narrating broader political events).

[Please feel free to add your comment in the Comment box]

The vision, talent and inspiration of jazz giant Zim Ngqawana lives on

2011-05-11T14:01:00.000Z

Zim Ngqawana has certainly left his mark. Reports in the media this week referred to him as a genius. His son, Ludwe, drafting the press statement, referred to him as an icon. These superlatives are no exaggeration; Zim was a professional musician of note  – one who operated in the world as if he had a clear mission and a singular calling.

On 9 May 2011 Zim played his beloved instruments for the last time. Rehearsing at his Johannesburg home for a forthcoming gig, he collapsed and was rushed to hospital where he died the next day from effects of a stroke.

Saxophonist, flautist and composer extraordinnairre, Zim was highly talented and inventive, creating distinctive sounds and boldly combining various styles of jazz. Musically he was a visionary. He was always pushing the boundaries, trying to go beyond what he created before and frequently fusing indigenous sounds with stylistic elements from the canon of western jazz. He never patronised his audiences, always believing in their capacity to appreciate the avant garde.

He not only played music for his and other’s enjoyment, music for him was a meditative space. Through it, he seemingly strove to reach a deeper core of human existence. Many of those who listened to him came to appreciate this, and turned up at his gigs with a fitting mindset. Others did not quite get this, sometimes causing Zim frustration as he played. They did not get that he wanted music to be approached with a certain reflectiveness, that his stage could be seen as an altar that could help life-weary listeners enter a sacred space (even if that place was the space within). It’s not that he opposed people having a beer or scotch in the venues where he played; but he did hate it when a venue was like a bar-room, when excessive drinking and raucous banter superseded the listening.

Zim had many visions (some might even say lofty ones) for his music. This is why he called it Zimology – he saw it as an approach, a way of thinking and a way of being in culture. Music to him was part of a journey of spiritual discovery he was undertaking. In radio interviews, questioned about his music, he found an incredible articulateness about the meaning of his music. Tapping into his inner core, he spoke wisely about the deeper sources and meanings of music.

I haven’t seen him much in recent months, but in earlier times  – a few years back  – he was driven by a need to try to create a physical home for Zimilogy. He dreamed of establishing a renowned jazz club cum rehearsal space cum academy. He identified certain buildings/venues and submitted offers or expressions of interest, but nothing came of this. He bought a farm in Walkerville and some wonderfully crazy, creative and collaborative things happened there. But this venue never really took off in a big way. The dream of a special and spectaular 'space' always eluded him, slipping through his fingers.

Zim established two organisations to carry his vision, the Zimilogy Institute and the Zimilogy Development Institute (Zimdi). Zimdi expressed his commitment to young artists and was meant to be the forerunner of the major academy he dreamed of. There were debates about how much the work of Zimdi would be structured and how much would be a kind of loose mentorship based on the idea that the protégé would learn from spending time with, observing and listening to the Master. Numerous young artists  – rough diamonds  – were nurtured and honed by Zim, and have emerged as accomplished musicians in their own right. Zim was by nature a person constantly generating knowledge, thinking and insights. With the exception perhaps of jamming with fellow jazz musicians, he liked nothing better than sitting in a lounge or a kitchen talking, reflecting and discussing. These discussions covered views of life, culture and, as often lately, existential questions.

Zim achieved greatness in seemingly deft and clearguided ways; but much of it was underpinned by relentless hard work. He won many awards and played with renowned jazz musicians across the world. He netted a slew of SAMA awards and, early on, was hailed as the brightest and most exciting young jazz artist in Mzansi. He featured as a solo saxophonist at the inauguration of Nelson Mandela as president in 1994.

But lately things for Zim began to move to a certain point – a decidedly downward turn. His health took a dip when he had more than one minor stroke in the last three years. His farm was vandalized and a grand piano senselessly damaged. As is the case for most jazz musicians, it was a struggle to ensure strong and steady income streams from his work. He saw his dream of establishing an iconic jazz club and successful academy wither, thanks to closed doors on the part of financial institutions and myopic vision from relevant public bodies. His mood became sombre and sometimes depressed, and in an interview just after he turned 50, he made a point of discussing his mortality. Latterly, he even began to wonder if jazz would ever get its place in the sun and be properly appreciated in our society. He seemed to be overcome by a weariness and he told one friend days before his untimely death that he was overwhelmed and another that he needed rest.

At his funeral on 10 May, a rainy evening, scores of people packed his home to say their final farewells. Although there were many musicians present, there was no sound of an musical instrument to be heard. Even at the graveside, there seemed to be a sombreness. We should have been celebrating an icon, remembering him with bold brassy sounds and vibrant vocals; instead the mood and much of the discussion between mourners was pensive and somewhat downbeat. Perhaps it was just the rain and the mud and the piles of slippery brown leaves on the roadway and the verges.

One thing is for sure: the greatness, the inventiveness and the pioneer spirit that is Zim will live on in the ouvre of great works he produced, and in the hearts of his numerous followers. He was a grand master of his game, and has laid down tracks and planted signposts that will influence jazz for many many decades to come. I honour him – go well, anointed one ....

(Please feel free to add your views in the comment box).

Memory and the present clash in The Pump Room, a dynamic new play

2011-05-04T06:12:00.000Z

Allan Horwitz’s play, the Pump Room, which just finishes its run at the Theatre in the District in Cape Town, should have attracted much greater attention from audiences and reviewers alike. But this small production, lacking a big budget and the marketing muscle of the big theatre houses, has for now made only a tiny blip on the theatre scene. Pity.

The play has interesting structural elements. The narrative is built around the central metaphor of a pump room – around the sluggish but rhythmic work of pumps to depollute, clean up and freshen out water so that it can be fit for public use.

Although the specific comment is about how former security policemen have reinvented themselves and function (in often toxic ways) in the new dispensation, there is an implicit reference to wider comment about corruption in society.

At one level, the play throws light on how emotions, issues and trauma of the past have washed over into the present. At another level, it shows how the evil deeds, manipulation, terror and human exploitation, including exploitation of women, continue into the present.

Horwitz juggles the characters between crosscutting lines of conversation, between the male and female poles and between the claustrophobic pump room setting and the sea-view location. He manages to maintain the balance (and precariously so) without letting it all collapse in confusion. The banter between characters becomes fast-paced; everyone struggling for some control of their situation by defending who they are, using verbal sniping, pushing their view of life and all too often sticking the knife into each other's flaws.

In the end memory and the present jar but also, in a strange way, work to form a coherent whole. For the characters, the memories opens wounds and surfaces unresolved issues. But for the audience, as the past is revealed, it helps to explain the distorted relationships and the strange bonds. The information about the past brings a frame of understanding and even empathy.

The play is political but also invokes the personal dimension. It skillfully raises the question: what is it that prevents the individual from breaking out of paralysis so they can move forward with some sense of future and purpose? How much of the 'stuckness' is due to external forces, and how much is due to the demons, often un-named, that we carry with us?

It was a pity the show attracted such small audiences, as I said. The powerful piece forms part of a broader phenomenon. There is currently a flourish of new works, in literature and the theatre, that focus on the past (the days when apartheid reigned supreme) or show how the new democracy is still shadowed by ghosts of the past. The Pump Room links particularly to works that show how individuals, including those who were involved in the struggle, were traumatized and brought close to breaking point by what they went through. For a good number of such people, while many aspects of life in Mzansi move forward, they remain on the sidelines, trying to reassemble their life. Although the social situation cries out for selfless champions, for the kind of value driven activists that they were, they are unable to bring themselves to drive the dynamic social change agenda that they fought for in earlier times.

Horwitz, in his guise as a playwright and director, is an important new voice - one that believes in the vibrancy, ongoing relevance and life-giving quality of politically-oriented theatre. Skillfully directed and well acted, the Pump Room’s brief run is over; one hopes that it will be staged again in the near future.

Lewis Nkosi: a giant of SA literature

2010-09-11T11:13:00.000Z

A giant has fallen with the passing of Lewis Nkosi (Sunday 5 Sept. 2010). He was one of only a tiny few of the so-called Drum writers that lived on into the last five to ten years; not only that, he continued to be prolific and powerful with the written word for this extended period.

In this sense, he was an ongoing resource and a re-energising force in South Africa’s literary affairs and in critical discourses related to it, enriching in distinctive ways the dialogues, conversations and reflections on the emergence and future directions of our literature. He held a perspective and boasted an involvement that spanned several key phases in the development of black writing in Mzansi.

The experience of being a 'Drum writer' – a reference to black writers that worked at Drum magazine in the pre 1960s period – functioned as a powerful platform for Nkosi. It contributed to his qualities of always being engaged and refusing an ivory tower detachment from what fellow black South Africans were living through. Also, something of the wry humour, the twinkle in the eye, the brashness, the willingness to lash out at oppression –qualities associated with the Drum writers – always remained with him.

However, his journey and transitions took him light years beyond the Drum writer categorisation; in other words, he was so much more. Utilising his articulateness and perceptiveness, he has added in immense ways to the understanding of literature and black voices in literature. He was able to embrace the Drum writer identity and at the same time adopt a helicopter vision and critically observe the "Drum writer' phenomenon as well as other features of literary expression in South Africa.

In his literary criticism, he wrote with insight on the ‘schism’ as well as the common ground between the inzile and exile writer. He often bemoaned the fact that repression and censorship in the post-60s meant young writers were deprived of their heritage (access to the work of writers driven into exile).

Nkosi [author of Mating Birds (Perennial fiction library) and Mandela's Ego] was a master with words and a fount of insights; he was inventive, clever, bold in his novel writing and non-sentimental as a commentator. He possessed a deep understanding of the relationship between literature and society and of how the writer is influenced by, and illuminates, understanding of society. He applied this understanding adeptly to the dynamic and ever-charged South African situation. Lewis Nkosi is gone far too soon, but through his works (essays, plays and novels) he will continue to dialogue with us about a diverse range of issues related to our literature and its development as the process of democratic change continues in our society.

(For further reading, see also the following text on Nkosi: Still Beating the Drum: Critical Perspectives on Lewis Nkosi (Cross/Cultures 81) (Cross/Cultures: Readings in the Post/Colonial Literatures in))

Mandela and leadership: Leading from the deck & leading from behind

2010-09-02T11:24:00.003Z

One of the greatest leadership lessons from Nelson Mandela is that you can lead from the front or the back; and that the dynamic leader frequently alternates between the two.

At times the leader steps boldly to the front, setting the pace and spearheading decisions on critical and urgent issues facing the organisation. At other times, the leader opts for a more recessed position, providing a framework or an anchor that gives strength in the midst of turbulence.

During his long journey of social and political commitment, Nelson Mandela at times led as the captain on the deck, so to speak. At other times his leadership role was a background role, much more in line with the notion of a leader-filled society. Nelson Mandela's leadership style, and the approaches within that, has much to teach us. Here is a schematic view of how he alternated between the two leadership approaches:

Relevant period or initiative	Leadership approach
Defiance Campaign	Leading from the front
Rivonia Trial	Leading from the front
Internment on Robben Island & the period of armed struggle	Leading from behind
Negotiations	Leading from the front
Constitutional negotiations	Leading from behind
New democracy: Reconciliation	Leading from the front
New democracy: delivery and redress	Leading from behind
Eschewing a second term (as president of S.A.)	Leading from behind
Decision to retire (from active public role)	Leading from behind

During the Defiance Campaign, Nelson Mandela occupied the decidedly upfront role of Volunteer in Chief.

At the Rivonia trial, Mandela led from the front. Faced with the possibility of a death sentence in the context of a hostile courtroom and an unfavourable legal system, the trialists took a courageous and firm stand, based on a belief in justice. Nelson Mandela played the central role in forging that stand – cementing his reputation as a forceful leader in the face of adversity and a fearless campaigner for justice. In his speech from the dock (in 1964) he famously said that the ideal of a democratic society was one for which he was “…. prepared to die”.

Later while in prison serving a life sentence, Mandela appeared to understand that the leadership of others would be foregrounded. Oliver Tambo and Joe Slovo, for example, took up central leadership roles and Mandela regularly deferred to them on many questions facing the organisation. In prison, Mandela advised the other ANC leaders that they were inmates who should view themselves as political prisoners rather than leaders. This meant accepting the limitations on the role they could play – and also, critically, embracing the reality that political prisoners could not and should not engage in negotiations. Of course Mandela remained a leader and a symbolic force, but in the armed struggle context, he was not central (in the same way as before) in the day to day life of the movement.

Emerging from prison into the pre-democracy negotiations, he again stepped into the forefront, leading from the front. In the negotiations, and the period immediately thereafter, he was at the cutting edge.

Mandela very early on began to step aside from part of his presidential roles to allow Mbeki to become prominent. He skilfully prepared the public and the world for the reality of a democratic South Africa led by someone other than himself.

As leaders such as Mandela have shown, through leading from a position within the ranks, the leader can work more intensively and purposefully on the ethos, on general practice and on values. He or she can deepen the contribution to these aspects, in many cases a process begun but sometimes not consolidated when a leader is totally absorbed in the cut and thrust. From the rear vantage point, the leader has the space to elaborate certain ideas and to think about how he or she might institutionalise values. From that background position, he or she can provide the grounding and depth that nutures leadership and builds astuteness at all levels, thus promoting organisational sustainability.

In practice, leading from behind does not necessarily mean a leader has more time at their disposal, opts for a less intensive role or is retreating from responsibilities. The pressures and demands on time may be as great. However, because the leader that operates from the background is somewhat removed from the more reactive space, she has room to apply herself to broader questions – and to prioritise what is important (but perhaps less urgent) over crises and immediate pressures.

As Linda Hill has pointed out, Nelson Mandela has explicitly endorsed leading from behind and has done so through drawing parallels with how the shepherd handles the sheep in his care. In his autobiography, Mandela noted that the shepherd “stays behind the flock” steering them from behind. In this piece, I continue my theme of leadership lessons from the great man; I show how Mandela has used this leadership mode in conjunction with the more conventional “leading from the front,” depending on the requirements of particular situations.

Mandela's values: reconciliation & a complicated transition

2010-07-31T07:19:00.000Z

The values of Mandela have been described and listed in a variety of ways; almost always, reconciliation features at the top and as a central part of his legacy. This reconciliation is also said to be embedded in the leadership style of Nelson Mandela, especially of the man that emerged from 27 years of imprisonment at the hands of the apartheid system.

The issue was brought to the fore again in a recent discussion (29 July 2010) at Wits Theatre Johannesburg where writers such as Nadine Gordiner, Achmat Dangor, John Kani and Chilean-American Ariel Dorfman shared a stage.

Reconciliation, according to John Kani, was flawed if it did not bring about social justice. In a segment from his play - Nothing But The Truth - that Kani read out on the night, the character Sipho insisted that he wanted a white policeman that shot his son during the apartheid conflict brought to court and found guilty.

While Sipho wanted the perpetrator to pay for his unjust deed (retribution), John Kani the author spoke of the need for justice, for reconciliation to be accompanied with 'righting' of wrongs and for payback in the sense of socio-economic justice for the black community. While retribution and revenge, taken either personally or historically, are never a resolution, Kani's call for restoration makes sense. If, for example, you steal my bicycle, it is not enough for you to say sorry to me when your actions catch up with you. It is reasonable that I expect you to return the bicycle to me.

For Dorfman, who spoke at a screening of a film in which he featured earlier in the same week, the question of reconciliation came to the fore in an oblique way. He did not use the term, but he noted that one of the greatest errors (leading to the downfall of the Salvador Allende government in 1973) was the failure to respond creatively to the middle class who feared that they would lose everything (property, farms, businesses, ownership rights, their wealth). "We should have realised we could not implement radical social change without getting the middle class on our side," he said. The 1973 coup ejected the democratically elected government and began a 15-year reign of repression that included widespread killings, torture and disappearances.

Reflecting on these two perspectives - Kani's and Dorfman's - one can see how Mandela's reconciliaton was, on the one hand, correct and, on the other hand, incomplete.

Emerging from prison to see close at hand a society fraught with violent conflict and as deeply divided as ever, Mandela was keen to undermine mobilisation of the right wing and to disrupt the possibility of solid (white) middle class sympathy for such forces. In this context, he skilfully crafted his reconciliation approach and led its implementation within the negotiation process and at various levels in society.

The 'Mandela Way', so to speak, involved - while putting in place universal political and civil rights - breaking down divides between people, establishing symbols acceptable on all sides, emphasizing a shared humanity and personally reaching out to various population groups and in particular the Afrikaner community. These approaches form core parts of his leadership style.

I term this reconciliation 'functional reconciliation'. Needless to say, it was critically important and a vital part of the transformation process - avoiding a slide into a sustained period of violent upheavel and militarised resistance to democratic change.It speaks to the astute leadership and the acute historical understanding on the part of Madiba.

The challenge now is to move from 'functional reconciliation' to a substantive reconciliation - one in which elements of restorative justice and reparations are strongly present and in which greater economic justice helped to create a well-grounded stability and a 'just peace'.

Writing in new collection is taut and evocative - Peterson on My Rainbow

2009-10-26T06:36:00.000Z

An astounding anthology with a poetic vision that is incisive, textured and big-hearted in its treatment of the intimacies and intricacies that link the past and the present, the personal and the political. So says Associate Professor Bheki Peterson of my new poetry collection, My Rainbow.

He further describes the writing in My Rainbow, released in October 2009, as "taut" and "evocative". The book represents a 'best of' selection of my poetry writing over many years.

Although I believe that a good number of the poems in My Rainbow are playful and merely revel in words, Peterson notes that the work is intense, engaging and informed by a clear poetic vision. The book can be purchased at:
a) www.kalahari.net/books/My-Rainbow/632/35071067.aspx
b) http://www.adamsbooks.co.za/

Here is the full quote from Peterson:

"An astounding anthology with a poetic vision that is incisive, textured and big-hearted in its treatment of the intimacies and intricacies that link the past and the present, the personal and the political.

The writing is taut and brimming with evocative cadences that recall rites and rights of passage that range from street corners, the whispers of yearning lovers to the bruised but resolute mantras that will activists to insist on a compassionate and equitable world.

The poems, in reading, achieve a collective coherence and visceral power because of Meintjies’ mature perspective and his sensuous and lyrical writing."

Bhekizizwe Peterson
Associate Professor of African Literature
School of Literature and Language Studies
Wits

For further details on My Rainbow, see also http://narratingchange.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-poetry-book-my-rainbow-hits-shelves.html.

New poetry book My Rainbow hits the shelves

2009-10-25T16:08:00.000Z

My new poetry book, My Rainbow, has hit the shelves. Check it out. (www.kalahari.net/books/My-Rainbow/632/35071067.aspx)

The content ranges widely and wildly - it covers the personal and the social and effortlessly shifts vantage points from domestic and highly localised settings to distant places and broader concerns.

The book draws on the best of poems written over nearly 30 years, and gains strength and depth (or at least a distinctiveness) from this wide scope.

My Rainbow can be obtained from good South African bookstores. It can also be obtained, online, from http://www.exclusivebooks.co.za/ or http://www.kalahari.net/; or you can trace the book on these websites by searching via author name and surname. (ISBN: 978-0-620-44659-4)

Although the book, taken as a whole, is said to have depth and meaning, My Rainbow contains many fun and playful poems, and quite a few that adopt the perspective of growing up and finding a place in the world.

My Rainbow, by Frank Meintjies, October 2009.

Obama - part of a long journey from slavery to the White House

2009-02-16T05:45:00.008Z

“I Barack Hussein Obama” … with these words US President Obama was sworn in on 20 January 2009 – and this completes in striking manner the long journey of African Americans from slavery to the present. Or as Rev Jesse Jackson was wont to say, the long walk "from the outhouse to the White House".

That arc of truth – the long journey of pain and mini successes and the slow meander through the wilderness – stretches from former slave Frederick Douglass to Obama.

Homage must be paid to a several leading lights in-between, including Marcus Garvey and Martin Luther King. [In addition, although he is not in the same league, we should not forget the role of Jesse Jackson who paved the way for Obama by running (unsuccessfully) for President in 1984 and 1987.]

Douglass, who lived in the 1800s and was born of mixed parentage, physically resisted his master’s beatings, escaped, dodged recapture and went on to campaign in his own country and abroad for the abolition of slavery. Douglass riled the liberals when he pointed out that once free, the former slave encountered unjust restrictions and racist controls – and the struggle for emancipation was as real in the liberal North as in the hardcore South.

By far the most radical and subversive, Marcus Garvey became an icon to millions. In his short life (from 1887 to 1940), he rejected the notion of integration and urged black people to go it alone. He campaigned tireless for some kind of mass return to Africa. Garvey made errors of judgment and drew criticism from certain quarters, but – especially to radical groups such as the Black Panthers – become a powerful symbol. Garvey is also remarkable for his view that all black people, given racist oppression, should unite globally, and that a common movement for liberation should be built.

Martin Luther King’s pivotal contribution is well known and frequently cited. Appealing to a broad range of people, he led with fervour, moral authority and vision, and his drive for civil rights found potent linkages with the anti-war movement of the 60s.

Malcom X also made a singular historical contribution. Focused entirely on galvanizing the black community, he promoted black consciousness, self assertion for black people, militant action and armed resistance. His movement did not take off on a significant scale, but his ideas live on. X’s ideas fed into, among others, the Black Panther movement. (Some members of this movement are still in jail and there is speculation as to whether Obama will secure the release of these men.)

The experience of all these leaders – and the stages of struggle they represent – raises many questions about African Americans and their preferred strategies for freedom. Do they prefer a ‘blacks going it alone’ agenda or is integration more appealing? Will they support militancy and confrontation, or are they generally more comfortable with incrementalism and peaceful requests for change? In what ways do they see themselves as connected to black people in the rest of the world – or do most regard themselves as essentially and primarily ‘Americans’? Did Garvey have some hope of success in promoting a ‘back to Africa’ movement, or is this idea alien to rank and file African Americans? In South Africa, the thinking of all the major US black leaders has had some influence, although some would say that the King approach (inclusive organization coupled with non-violent action) had greater traction. It is also said that Thabo Mbeki reflects a more militant approach towards racism whereas Mandela is associated with strategies of inclusiveness and non-confrontation (although this is certainly not true of the early Mandela who embraced armed struggle).

Obama has achieved outstanding success, his inauguration a crowning moment that follows centuries of resistance to racism. His election is a powerful blow against racists and racist discrimination. But for many African Americans, it’s 'wait and see' time – will his rise to power significantly advance the battle against racism and inequality?

What is your view? In what way does Obama reflect or not reflect the history of black people in the US? Feel free to add your comment.

Matthews & Abrahams shine as Coyaba Chronicles and Quartet provide great reading

2009-02-04T10:44:00.006Z

There's always superb reading available about and from Mzanzi, and older voices can be as engaging as the new, demanding that they be revisited and even 'reread'.
One of my best current reads is Peter Abrahams' Coyaba Chronicles: Reflections on the Black Experience in the Twentieth Century. It is part autobiographical and part commentary, narrating the major issues in a way that spans many decades (Abrahams was born in 1919) and throws a beam onto the charged and turbulent present.
Abrahams writes with passion and insight: he takes on the issue of race and racism with deft words and an incisive pen. He weaves these views together with his real life experiences in South Africa, Britain and in France. In the course of the book, he touches on the dilemma – if one can call it that – of being Coloured. While he accepts the notion of colouredness, along the way remarking wryly about the in-between state, he also disputes the notion of a 'pure' race. He tells engagingly of the ups-and-downs of choosing a writing life, and of the challenges of making love relationships work.
He canvasses a range of topics. The emergence of the Non-aligned Movement is traced, helped along by wonderful vignettes about Nkrumah, Nyerere, Mboya, etc. (or younger versions of themselves). The cold war and its influence are dissected (and Abrahams notes, with flickers of anger, that Africa's interest frequently died on that battleground). Abrahams explains the intellectual sparring between black voices such as Du Bois, Marcus Garvey and Baldwin, showing from his own unique perspective the intersections and divergences among these great thinkers.
Abrahams has done a fair bit of shoulder rubbing with important people in his time – he has enjoyed a drink with various emerging African leaders and with writers that range from Richard Wright to Baldwin to Langston Hughes to Jean-Paul Sartre. He marvels at how (some) leaders change (and adversely so) once they assume power. Leaders who were previously accessible and able to interact, he notes, easily become unreachable and insulated from anyone accept those keen to bow and sing praises. When Abrahams visits an erstwhile friend and a struggle leader that has assumed a national presidency, he is dismayed by the airs and graces and by the reluctance to openly discuss challenges, let alone listen to feedback.
His life constitutes a remarkable adventure, his views on race, democracy and imperialism is illuminating and his writing is replete with intelligence, feeling and style.
Another great read is a collection by James Matthews and associates Richard Rive, Alex La Guma and Alf Wannenburgh. This time the angle is fiction, contained in a publication entitled Quartet: New Voices from South Africa
Matthews himself is continuing his eventful life. Rising from poverty and a poor education, he carved his name in the annals of both journalism and literature. His contributions via the pen were complemented by activist work such as the establishment of a gallery and a publishing house (called BLAC), the latter reaching a zenith in the seventies. He has launched a new publishing house, Realities, which is the platform for the republication of this anthology which features the work of the four.
This text, originally published abroad in the sixties, was banned and not released here. The stories in Quartet depict with flair, wit and often understatement the lives of ordinary black people as they struggle with, get knocked around by and sometimes rise above the day to day grind in racist South Africa. Quartet: New Voices from South Africa: Alex LA Guma, James Matthews, Richard Rive, Alf Wannenburgh (African Writers Series 14)
Shebeens feature, as do witty conversations, transport woes, money problems, male/female encounters and bristling interaction between black and white people. The stories weave a tale less of heroism than of everyday tenacity; at times the characters discover a sense of co-operation amid the desperation, sometimes they make personal shifts, at other times it all ends on a much more open-ended note. Another day will dawn, another story will unfold, all part of the fabric called life. The four writers complement each other powerfully. Matthews weighs in strongly with powerful pieces such as Azikwelwa, The Portable Radio and The Park. These pieces are matched by the immense writing acumen reflected in, inter alia, Wannenburgh's Echoes, La Guma's Glass of Wine and Rive's Rain.
This book is a classic. The writing is evocative, inventive and powerful. Although an aspect of the apartheid system informs many of the plots (that is how the book was curated), the writing is not just a reflection of the thing it describes. It becomes a thing (of beauty and truth) in its own right. As all good writing does, the writing operates on more than one level, conveying something deeper about the human condition, about ourselves. This is why Quartet is being republished: it is writing not just for that time (the good-old bad-old sixties), but for now.

Egelhof explores identity & history in powerful theatre piece

2009-01-13T20:46:00.009Z

I know Kurt Egelhof as a Durban boy whom I first met way back in the eighties. In his play, For Generations, Egelhof interrogates his past to get a better understanding of himself and who he is in the world today.

This introspection and this interrogation of family and heritage is something many of us are too afraid to countenance, and are even less likely to do in a public forum. (Believe me, many Coloured Durbanites do not want to dig too deeply into their origins; they would rather bluff and pretend than confront or honour the realities of their past.) But Kurt opens his photo albums, the kist and the closet and unveils what lies behind his Durban upbringing for the audience.

Kurt (in the past referred to as Kurtie by a friend, Dawn Robertson) cut his teeth in theatre in the eighties, but in the last fifteen years has strayed from the stage to television production. His current play, For Generations, highlights what we miss when voices such as his go into management or high powered executive jobs.

In For Generations, first launched at the 2008 Grahamstown festival, Egelhof investigates the male lineage of his family – tracing the line from his grandfather through to his son. He speaks of hardship, of intermarriage, of male reticence (that is both stubborn and tragic), of racial injustice and of the "debt" owed and the restoration that needs to take place. His (German) grandfather was shortchanged, partly because he married a Xhosa woman and partly because the world would not honour the talents of a local jazz musician. His father, Basie, fell short because he worked long hours – to the extent that it destroyed his marriage. He was often denied advancement in his work, thanks to apartheid. In the end, he died prematurely in a workplace accident.

Kurt studied a drama degree, one of only a handful of black people in an otherwise all white class in 1980s. As he tells it in For Generations, on graduating he had to face the harsh reality that decent parts were hard to come by. As a 'coloured,' he was viewed as unsuitable for a Shakespeare role and for a part in, for example, a production such as Welcome Msomi's Umabatha. He also had to endure racial discrimination at social venues and at the hands of sections of Durban's population.

For Generations is about a man getting clarity about who he is by understanding his background – the turns and twists his forbears were forced to take in a land dominated and distorted by apartheid. In the play, Egelhof depicts what life was like for his grandfather and father; he takes a brutally honest look at his own experiences, and; he engages with his son's dreams. Through all of this he discovers what he must do. Salvation lies in acknowledging his Xhosa grandmother, in speaking out against the denial of dignity and in calling for truth and accountability regarding the past. He must break the silence, he mustn't acquiesce, he must push back – and in doing so, he must sometimes spoil or disturb the genteel and polite social engagement in present day suburbia.

This play deals with being Coloured in South Africa. This is done not ideologically nor in a didactic manner, but on the basis of relevant experiences skilfully drawn from lower middle class existence and from a particular set of stories about dignity that is both crushed and resurgent.

Egelhof's play is powerfully authentic. It grips you, draws you close and gets you to empathise with a set of ordinary but clearly defined characters (that include his forbears and himself). The play avoids sentimentality; instead, it shares with grit and honesty Egelhof's own moment of awakening. Indications are that Kurt's moment of realisation and insight came during the making of the play itself - in the researching and writing process. One can venture to say this moment of truth is – incredibly – recreated on the stage each time the play is staged. The techniques used in the play, the intimate approach and his direct way of engaging with the audience, makes the play akin to an open-hearted chat with Egelhof.

The play has not yet travelled to all of South Africa's main centres and has yet to make its debut in Johannesburg. It will be interesting to see what Johannesburg critics and audiences make of it, and whether it will get the attention and plaudits it deserves.

Expect greater turbulence in the wake of Zuma court outcome

2009-01-13T05:29:00.003Z

The Jacob Zuma judgement (of yesterday 12/1/08) is eliciting cheers in some quarters and jeers in others. But for me, a sense of weariness and foreboding is a more relevant response.

It seems the justice system is unable to make charges stick - and the situation is not helped by widely conflicting judgements from the judiciary. All the latest judgement does is send the process back to the legal starting point, from where a new cycle of legal games and contestation between state and Zuma's legal counsel will most likely ensue.

The attempts to prosecute Zuma take place in a context where:

Corruption appears to be part of the operating mode of many major companies – in most cases of corruption, a company is often the corruptor;
The arms deal remains controversial – and Zuma correctly points out that he was not part of the national political scene at the time the arms deal was being forged and signed;
The government's tender processes has in general been undermined; the ANC has itself in an official 10 January 2009 statement argued that the tender process has been poisoned by corrupt practices and needed to be changed;
The crossover between business and politics in the last 14 years has raised its own questions - and serious ethical issues. Big Business has used BEE strategically and expediently; it has focused on "empowering" political connected people, ones who help them with information and inside insight about government plans, decisionmaking and tenders. Zuma has not been a central player in BEE deals.

The above context raises question about why Zuma in particular was selected for prosecution. Of course, while we are free to pose such a question, it is not wise for Zuma or those closest to him ask why he was singled out for prosecution. Anyone who is charged should accept that theoretically and legally anyone is eligible to be charged; those who are innocent should be confident they can prove their innocence or that they were wrongfully charged; any person (moreso a politician) has greater credibility when he or she submits to a legal process; and cynics (or in this case, critics of Zuma and the ANC) will argue that most people will cry foul at being prosecuted.

However, the long and short is that the months ahead will be turbulent (above and beyond what one normally expects during an election year). In terms of whether Zuma should go to court and face charges or not, we have two powerful forces facing off against each – one being the establishment and the other a mass based politically movement (sometimes termed the Zuma juggernaut).

In addition, there are many (potential) flashpoints – and tinder dry conditions for conflict in a number of areas. Any Zuma court appearances will become physical sites for expression of mass anger. As Cope calls for the ANC to drop Zuma and denounces him as an unworthy presidential candidate, the level of tension and conflict between ANC and Cope will be increased. And what with persons such as 702's John Robbie raising question's about the judiciary's credibility after such widely divergent decisions on Zuma, the judiciary will again become a target of vicious verbal attacks. Last but not least, the ongoing controversy around Zuma (coupled with his immense mass support) continues to fuel uncertainty and instability in the financial markets.

In this context, no one should be crowing about the outcome of the case, or about the likelihood of ongoing legal contestation (appeals and counter appeals) in the immediate and many months ahead. The political rollercoaster ride – distracting us from critical national tasks, from real debate about developmental policies and from the job of optimally positioning ourselves as a country in the world – is set to continue.

Give me hope Obama: comparing the leadership of Obama and Mandela

2008-12-11T14:11:00.011Z

Can Obama's leadership be compared to that of Mandela? Well, it has - and there seems to be merit in reviewing the former's achievements and standing in the world through a comparison with Nelson Mandela, the esteemed former liberation fighter and South African ex-president.

This blog piece (comparing Obama as a leader with Madiba) was sparked by a cellphone text message I received on the day of Obama's election. A friend advised me that Obama was "the new Mandela".
At first I thought any such comparison - comparing Mandela's leadership style as well as his leadership prowess - was far fetched, something to be discussed in jest or a notion that relied far too much on the colour similarities of the protagonists.

I thought: how can we compare the two? Although we rave at his electoral achievements and applaud his immense potential to effect global change, Obama’s leadership capabilities have not yet been deployed and tested to the hilt. Given my location on Africa’s tip, I at least am not aware of major leadership exploits on his part outside of presidential campaigning. Obama's leadership abilities are similarly not yet known to the many who revere him around the world.

Mandela on the hand has led solidly, with integrity and in a principled manner over a substantial period of time; he has been the dignified and powerful focal point of a historically significant process of change. He has done the time – laying down tracks and pathways that facilitate hope and progressive change in the present and all the way into the future.

His leadership style and greatness has also been forged in the fires of racist repression and enormous personal sacrifice, with himself enduring jail for 27 years. How can Obama be measured against the greatness of Mandela, one may well ask.

But, on further reflection, I realise that a review of their respective leadership approaches can be useful. Though not always a fair and meaningful exercise - and in many ways a discussion of each one's leadership style in relation to the other rather than a comparison of two people – such an exercise can be used to trigger debate and deeper thinking on leadership.

It is worth discussing two interesting views that I have come across in recent months.

According to another close friend, Obama's main appeal – and here similarities with the Mandela phenomenon are very strong – is that he is a peddler of hope. Millions of people in the world project their hopes onto him. In this friend's view, it matters less what Obama is and what he is able to do. What matters is that people who see and hear him have their hopes rekindled and their faith in the future restored. Just as it happened with Mandela, Obama emerges as a leader against a backdrop of worldwide pessimism, worry and fears about the future; at a time when millions wonder whether a better world will be achieved, if armed conflict can be reduced, poverty eradicated and major environmental challenges overcome. Untold millions across the globe are desperate for leadership and a powerful message that can propel us into joint action against the threats we face.

This view – that Obama appeal is linked to the state of the world and to a widespread yearning for a politics of hope – correlates with the view that leaders are (largely) products of their context, and that great leaders often emerge in times of great adversity and uncertainty. In such situations, a leader with a bold vision and a clear message can become larger than life.

Another comment to consider is one made by persons such as Fons van der Velden and Harry Boyle (the latter an academic involved with the Obama campaign). Their view is that Obama's leadership style is distinctive in that he constantly affirms the 'agency' of ordinary people and explicitly eschews the notion of the leader as saviour. (Clearly this view is to some extent in tension with Obama fever in which he as leader is seen as the embodiment of hope). Their view is supported by the narrative that Obama spins. His famous chant is 'Yes we can' rather than 'Yes I can'. At his post-victory speech he announced: "I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you (meaning the volunteers, organisers and active supporters)". Van der Velden and Boyle see Obama's mode of operation as a reflection of what they term citizen-driven democracy, where the knowledge of experts and the leader's hunches never take precedence over the importance of ensuring citizens have the space to express themselves, make choices and take action.
In comparing Mandela and Obama (as I do below) I see important similarities. Both fare exceedingly well (or so far seems to, in the case of Obama) in terms of core leadership capabilities: framing reality, offering vision, communicating vision, strategic direction, integrity, enthusing people, enrolling others, building teams, developing leaders, guiding action, organisation-building, managing change, building bridges, dealing with setbacks, etc.

But I also see differences. Differences arise from differences in their personal attributes, in their backgrounds, in the challenges they face(d) and in the contexts from which they emerge. Although both operate(d) in the global domain, they address(ed) the world from different platforms and particular vantage points. These differences ensure variation in the patterns of their leadership style – desite great similarity in the underlying fibres, patterns and colour of the raw material. I consider aspects of their leadership profiles below:

Obama	Mandela
Shaped by specific historical circumstances	Shaped by specific historical circumstances
Beat the odds: it was unlikely that a black person would be president of the United States.	Beat the odds: unlikely that he would be president in his lifetime.
Personally articulates specific policy solutions	Backed by strong party on major policy questions. Less 'hands-on' - greater contribution in the area of vision and high-level objectives.
Bridging leader – brought people together against backdrop of deep-set divides	Bridging leader – brought people together against backdrop of deep-set divides
Through moral leadership and expression of powerful vision, communicates an appeal that extends far beyond the party support base	Through moral leadership and expression of powerful vision, communicates an appeal that extends far beyond the party support base
Ardent democrat &, explicitly, a stalwart of participatory democracy	Ardent democrat
Position on imperialism unclear – wants to 'rebuild' the greatness of the US 'block by block' an ensure the US's beacon burns bright	Anti-imperialist
(Main focus: to restore pride in the US and to 'reclaim' the American dream)	Clear vision to change Africa's position in the world
A source of inspiration and hope; advances the 'politics of possibility' which asserts that change is always possible	A source of inspiration and hope; advanced the 'politics of possibility' which asserts that change is possible
Massive global expectations to use US leadership to being positive change in the world on economic, social and environmental fronts	Expectations that he would help shift global power relations and positively change the position of African and developing countries in world affairs
Realistic about what he can do as a leader. Eschews the role of 'saviour' and rejects being cast as a superior being raised into power by The Divine. Has stated: "There will be setbacks and false starts … (b)ut I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face."	Realistic about what he alone as leader can accomplish. Eschews the role of 'saviour' and rejects being cast as a superior being raised into power by The Divine. Strove to constantly acknowledge the contribution of others, despite the blind adulation of 'groupies' and past blunders in this regard by bodies such as the Nelson Mandela Foundation. Humble enough to voluntarily step down as South Africa's president after his first term in office
Listens to people; develops campaign strategy and party processes in a manner that facilitates and enables listening to 'the people'	Listens to people
Engages ordinary people and constantly advises them on relatively specific and active roles in bringing about change	Engages powerfully with ordinary people

What is your view? Do you agree that Obama is, as it were, the younger version of Mandela (as my friend informed me in his cellphone text message)? Or do you share my view that there are important similarities but that these men not only operate(d) in different contexts, but their contributions to the world differ in important ways according to the respective challenges each faced? Please share your view.

Motlana’s legacy has a powerful message for us

2008-12-06T16:15:00.007Z

Dr Nthato Motlana, who died recently, leaves a legacy that speaks volumes about where South Africa has been and what it is striving to become. In terms of his political role, Motlana's life speaks of humanitarian opposition to injustice and of a leadership approach that places the stress on its substance rather than the trappings of the leadership role.

Although he had been active in politics before, Motlana shot onto the national stage in 1976. He stepped up as a founder member of the Soweto Committee of Ten to coordinate a wider response and an effective follow-up to the Soweto uprising. He brought links to the broader anti-apartheid struggle; he enhanced those turbulent developments through his stature and focus; his clear, consistent and persuasive communication was a welcome complement to the anger and fervour on the ground.

Motlana paid a stiff price for taking on that leadership role. The state tried and convicted him, detained him without trial, banned him and denied him a passport for over 30 years.

The good doctor ranks among the most admirable and more exemplary nationalist leaders. His involvement was not informed by a desire for political power. He never interacted with others in a superior or domineering manner, was free of airs and graces, and when asked to speak at events – although he expected proper organisation – took part without putting forward a list of VIP-related requirements.

Motlana's passion for education was unquenchable; it pained him that the new South Africa had, by and large, not yet succeeded in bringing quality education to poor and black households. In a sense, he remained dissapointed and concerned that the education struggle he embraced so fervently had not been resolved. Quality education remained stubbornly inaccessible to all - a few got the strawberries and cream of private school education; a bigger number get the bread and cheese of former model C government schooling, but the mass of scholars - multiplied millions - get a type of schooling that includes a glut of poorly trained teachers, broken and absent facilities, budget shortfalls and consistently 'badly performing' schools.

Motlana worked exceptionally well in creating broad fronts – he instinctively understood how educational organisations, community organisation and faith-based organisations could and should work together around a common agenda. His easygoing and inclusive nature meant that – mercifully – he never added to the ego problems one sometimes encounters in multi-stakeholder collaborations. Although no socialist, he worked particularly well with trade union leaders. He could see the common ground, and the possibilities of building a force for change with them.

Long live Motlana's legacy!

DA recruitment of parliamentarians steams ahead

2008-12-04T08:51:00.004Z

With all eyes focused on the ANC and its breakaway child, we sometimes forget to track moves within interesting other parties such as the Democratic Alliance.

Some months back the DA startled everyone by advertising for potential parliamentarians – a first for Mzansi. In an advert that was bold and (at least for other parties) provocative, it called for dynamic people who identified with the DA to apply to be considered to become parliamentarians.

Many sloggers and some stalwarts in the party resisted the step (I believe), but Zille stared them down and insisted it was the way to go. Her approach - it seems - is that, if previous attempts to woo voters and people of substance from the black community through the usual membership drives were largely a flop, the party should try new ways.

The recruitment of parliamentarians through an open competitive process combines the following:

For 'dynamic' young black people who are partial to public service, a powerful incentive to get involved with the party.
Shortening the path to meaningful and leadership roles in the party for talented black professionals.
The prospect of immediate rather than long tem change in the party's profile.

That process has now steamed ahead. With applications closed, the DA has apparently netted a bountiful harvest of would-be parliamentarians.

The candidates have been shunted through an assessment process involving interviews, psychometric tests and other 'checks'. This assessment, and I imagine the production of the short list, was conducted by consulting firm Deloitte. In the interviews, candidates were scrutinised regarding their identification with DA free market philosophy and approach to democracy. They were also grilled regarding relevant skills and abilities.

My information is that the DA is extremely chuffed at the haul. They are crowing about the numbers of sharp, talented and potentially high-impact black professionals that have come on board for the process.

Of course, the party that I've supported for yonks, the ANC, is highly aggrieved about the DA move. They believe advertising for parliamentarians is a regrettable development in politics. They accuse the DA of underhand tactics and of unfairly exploiting the unemployment crisis.

The DA initiative does bring to the fore the tension (and the question of balance) in politics between skills and depth of loyalty. The DA seems to be emphasizing the former. Just as in an arranged marriage the idea is to find someone with good qualities and possibly the right genes (and bank on the fact that they can learn to love you), so the DA believes that deeper emotional bonding between party and talented potential leader can come later.

Although the ANC would state that its expectations of representatives include leadership, policymaking and oversight capabilities, the ANC appears in practice to emphasize depth of loyalty.

It is true that, in the old days, when the ANC used the term 'tried and tested' to describe a leader, it referred both to devotion to the party, as well as to effective and tireless service, organising ability, sound understanding of strategy and an ability to enrol new members.

But there is no evidence that this high standard of leadership was not applied when filling the many spaces in national and provincial parliaments. In all likelihood, it would have been too high a benchmark for that purpose.

While many leaders came from the ranks of 'tried and tested' cadres, some got into parliament iprimarily on the basis of inclusiveness, floor crossings manoeuvres, the give-and-take of local list processes and the war games of poaching leaders from other parties.

The ANC shies away from assessing performance of parliamentarians – a step that would foreground the importance of skill and capability, and would create a platform for more focused and result-orientated skills enhancement. However, indications are that such an assessment is far too sensitive. Barely concealing their resistance, many politicians who might be the target of any proposed performance assessment will ask: Who will undertake it, (even if outsourced) who is likely to exploit the findings, how will data be managed and secured and who has the credibility to lead such a process.

And so the question is left hanging: how can the capabilities of parliamentarians be improved so that (a) they have the neccesssary skills to complement their commitment to a political party and (b) they serve democracy and the public interest better?

Makeba and Mphahlele: icons and pioneers in the creation of democracy

2008-11-16T06:22:00.007Z

The passing of Miriam Makeba (this week) and Es'kia Mphahlele (in October 2008) is a major loss to SA – and a painful reminder that we have failed to properly acknowledge artists' role in the gestation and birth of democracy in Mzansi.

Mphahlele and Makeba are beacons for creative expression and for the contribution of artists to wider society. They are icons and pioneers. They have been powerfully inspirational; thanks to how they found and served a higher human purpose, their inspiration is at a different level as compared to the somewhat more populist but often more transient aura of power-holding politicians or famous entertainment stars.

Makeba became a key voice of resistance, her songs an elegant and evocative soundtrack to the struggle, conveying the dignity and quiet strength of the many ordinary people that demanded an end to apartheid during the darkest years of racial oppression.

She presented the struggle as stemming from a people who understood how fighting an oppressor was linked to a commitment to a larger common humanity. Her music conveyed that the struggle was – simultaneously – about confrontation and care, about pushback and embracing with love, about angry resistance and songs of love. The songs combined the grittiness of the then current reality ('the truth' as Makeba was wont to say) with an implicit and joyful hope in the future.

In those dark years, her music and personal commitment to freedom represented by her life story buoyed us. For activists absorbed in long nights of work in those times (work that included intense discussions, strategising, detailed 'event planning', production of media, etc) her music gave us strength to sustain our efforts for change.

Overseas, Makeba gave her listeners a distinctive and compelling window on Africa. Her songs communicated the spirit of a continent (its moods, registers, modes of expression and the stubborn humanism underpinning so much of what we do in the continent).

Makeba's life was not easy. Although she clearly thrived on flexing her singing talent and her beats and melodies convey joy and an invigorated outlook on life, she suffered vindictive government action against her, the travails of exile (including being unable to travel to her mother's funeral in SA) and a rollercoaster of failed marriages (to persons such as Hugh Masekela and Stokely Carmichael). She bore this suffering with remarkable dignity.

Mphahlele's terrain of operation was different and, occupying the intellectual stage, his immense contribution to society was/is disseminated in a different way (compared to Makeba). His enormous impact ripples out from the world of literature, academia and the arts.

Numerous writers were influenced by Mphahlele. Emerging as a writer in the 50's, through his work and ideas he established himself as a giant in the decades to follow. However, despite his standing in literature and academia, Es'kia Mphahlele's contribution to South Africa has been woefully under-recognised in democratic South Africa.

Mphahlele is an outstanding representative of the Drum generation of writers (a group which included leading lights such as Can Themba, Nat Nakasa, Lewis Nkosi, Casey Motsisi, Arthur Maimane, Todd Matshikiza and Bloke Modisane and Henry Nxumalo).

His memoir, Down Second Avenue (1959), was a milestone, a turning point and a major marker of directions, themes, dexterity and moods in emergent black writing. This text is required reading wherever the development and history of indigenous literature is studied and qualifies as an important text beyond.

Throughout his life, Mphahlele remained committed to teaching (literature and writing) and to guiding young writers. Backed up by an impressive body of creative writing, he made contributions through teaching at university, involvement in writer's organisations, essay-writing and by granting access to young writers.

Life was also not a breeze for Mphahlele. Apart from a tough boyhood in racist South Africa as conveyed through his memoir, he endured life in exile (he wrote and taught in Nigeria, France, Kenya, Zambia and the US). He never bowed to the pressures (including the dislocation a writer faces in having to ply his craft in exile); he remained focused and strong, and avoided the self-destruction of several other writers of his generation.

A tireless warrior in the battle of ideas, Mphahlele wrote continually and skilfully to propagate a respectful and informed view of African culture and to advance his conception of African humanism. These ideas are likely to be taken forward by the Es'kia Institute that he founded in 2002.

With the passing of Makeba and Mphahlele the truth again hits home: democratic South Africa has failed to adequately acknowledge the contribution of artists – their role in freeing our ideas, in fuelling hope and an in entrenching key values (social cohesion, humanity, a life in dignity) that we have enshrined in the constitution and strive to realise in our daily lives.

They have not been given their due, neither symbolically nor via creation of dynamic institutions on culture and society nor by significant opportunities and channels for supporting young talent. Government and other role players need to act urgently to correct this shameful neglect and, through such action, live up to the legacy of stalwart such as Makeba and Mphahlele.

Finally, invoking Mahalia Jackson and her classic song (written by Dick Holler), we may well lament:

Has anybody here, seen our old friend uMama and Es'kia?

Can you tell us where they've gone?

They freed a lot of people, but it seems the good die young

We looked around and they were gone ….

Open letter to Mantashe and Duarte

2008-10-26T18:12:00.006Z

Open letter to Gwede (Mantashe) and Jessie (Duarte):

What is the lengths to which 'mainstream ANC' will go in countering Lekota's breakaway initiatives?

I address this and other questions as some-one who hails from Kwazulu Natal, and who as a UDF member saw at close range the horrible consequences of political violence. In violence of that kind, both sides lose, even the one that thinks it gained from violence. The latter will face loss or adverse consequences in the longer term.

In violence, people are maimed and die unnecessarily. In addition, the country loses materially and otherwise; destruction is visited on communities and households, and efforts to tackle poverty are set back. Negativity and bitterness – and even the shadows of revenge - are buried deep in the psychological ground. Although many work through it, trauma - spoken and unspoken - dogs communities, activists and leaders; it clouds perspectives and makes some people unable to ever function to their full potential again.

Although the freedom struggle has used non-violent mass action as a primary force, violence also features. Militarism is part of the lived experience of a good number of leaders/activists in the ANC. In addition, as argued before in these blog pages, Fanon's influence hangs over many liberation struggles (although the saga of overthrows, rebel movements and coups at certain points and in some parts of Africa and some other developing countries raises questions about the long term effects of violence). However, strong, principled, visionary and values-based leadership in the ANC has helped to curtail the use of violence in our liberation struggle. They strove to limit violent attacks to installations and physical structures and to prevent it from becoming the main element. In the view of these veteran leaders, violence would be used as retaliation against the repressive violence of the state but would never be lionised and worshipped.

In the current situation of tension between mainstream ANC and dissident groups it is clear there is a great deal of anger and irritation. The question is: How far is the ANC prepared to go in countering the Shikota initiative? This question, since we know the ANC policies and principles, has less to do with whether the party has formally initiated or approved coercive and violent actions. The questions are (a) whether the party will be ambiguous or unambiguous about condemning violence (b) whether the party will claim violence is justified because it was provoked (c) whether the party will look on and say something like 'it's not our business, we can't do anything since it represents local groups reacting to developments as they see fit'.

It is not good enough to blame the other side, and hence to argue that preventing violence is the responsibility of Terror Lekota. Such a response smacks of poor leadership. The ANC should be providing leadership and seizing the moral high ground. We expect nothing less.

Surely, in a case of tension between progressive forces, it is an ideal time to promote non-violence as way of engaging – and as the principle way of building Mzansi. The ANC has made a call to its activists to strongly resist what it calls the ‘renegades’ and to aggressively counter the Lekota’s key messages. It is within its rights to do so.

But we and it should also bear in mind that community members need to work together in future to deal with community issues, advance development and implement programmes to address poverty. Violence, coercion and intimidation, apart from the real danger of loss of life and destabilization, will break the trust that a governing ANC will need to draw on after the election to ensure effective community development. Violence will cause fear in communities and drive ordinary folk away from voting and involvement in political processes – feeding into trends of depoliticisation underway since 1994.

I therefore ask you: Speak out strongly and ambiguously against violence. It is the right thing to do. Through it, you will gain the moral high ground. You will be creating conditions for political participation at community level, and for active citizenship able to assume responsibility and call for accountability. You will be realizing – and affirming – the link between non-violence and development. You will be recognizing the link between local community action based on trust, co-operation and local democratic practice and the achievement of the longer term goal of a better life for all.

Do you agree with the points made in this open letter? What do you think - please comment.

ANC: There is no crisis as far as we are concerned

2008-10-11T06:26:00.005Z

South Africa's ANC really dislikes the word "crisis". Whether it is the new team in power at party HQ or the old and recently sidelined group, they cannot abide the word.

The party's spokespersons get extremely wound up (and many of the 'troops' too) if there is any reference to crisis, either in relation to internal party issues or with respect to the national political situation.

Of course, while a part of this is excusable as the instinctive reaction of a (or any) political party, one must ask whether the phobia for the word 'crisis' as of way of describing events can be taken to extremes. And when it is taken to such lengths, I must add, it becomes highly humorous. Cartoonists and radio hosts who imagine themselves to be satirists really have a good time.

And so, in the last year, party hacks have expended tremendous energy in hitting back at any suggestion of a 'crisis', in attacking the use of the word and lashing out at those who dare use the term. In hotly disputing the idea of a crisis, party spokespersons often insist that:

there are 'no divisions'
the country's constitution has not been violated and is not under any threat
all actions taken were permissible and within the legal remit of the particular authority figure taking it
vicious conflict is alternately denied, natural, minor or 'blown out of all proportion'
all pertinent raised issues are internal matters that should never have been publicly aired in the first place

The most popular line these days is that unless there is a major constitutional issue at stake, there can be no crisis. Put another way: the official definition of a crisis is that the country's highly regarded constitution was being violated or is under threat. Narrowing the definition in this way may start off as 'spin doctoring', but it soon becomes an entrenched way of seeing and analysing developments.

For me, of course, the reality is that there is a leadership crisis in the country. We have not been properly or adequately led for the past year. There is a lack of focus, little sense of direction and "at the top," no one is seizing the initiative on key issues. Seizing the initiative would mean zooming in in a proactive way on an area of major concern to the public, demonstrating listening and engagement, framing the issue from the leadership point of view, giving clear pointers of action (and expected roles in action) and clear motivational calls for sustained unity in responding.

In this regard, the political hubbub post Polokwane, the sharpening of battle axes, the numerous leaks about infighting, the actual internal conflicts, the rumour mill, the provocative noises of certain youth leaders have all taken their toll. Mental bandwidth (at the political level) for critical socio-economic issues appears to severely limited.

Instead, as everyone knows, much attention is on the jostling over (or an intensive process of clarifying) which sub-group or leadership configuration will have dominant influence over the course of events in the country. But the official line has always been that there is no crisis.

Some definitions of crisis emphasise danger and possible catastrophe: they refer to "situations of extreme danger" or an incident that might involve death or injury to people or a tipping point that – if not managed well – leads to catastrophe. There are also less dramatic definitions: those that refer to "a crucial stage" or "turning point" or "an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending" and a "threat to the ability to carry out mission". JF Kennedy said that "(w)hen written in Chinese, the word 'crisis' is composed of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity".

For my purpose, the real (and only) question is whether there are major problems, issues and dynamics at the national level that require urgent, focused and highest-level attention. Although the word crisis is ordinarily used as a signifier of such, the recognition of such issues and challenges is more important than the semantic games as such.

What we are witnessing is a tussle over language and the use of words. The battle is about who can control the discourse – the media, the opposition party, the commentators, the leaders and/or strategists of key social movements. Whether explicitly or subliminally, these protagonists are keenly aware that she or he who controls the discourse controls the direction of events.

But denial of a crisis or of crises (like the crises that many say we have in the education and health arena) also means denying ourselves the opportunity of galvanising people and building unity. Such unity and popular mobilisation can lead to an effective response that exploits new possibilities or, at the least, to deft management of the crisis.

Those who flatly and automatically deny the existence of crises do not realise that there is no shame in conceding a crisis, just as there is no humiliation in admitting conflict. Crises and conflict represent contestation and contradictions that are necessary to propel a project or process to a new level of thinking. Looked at positively, crisis and conflict can lead to growth as well as to new capacities and knowledge. In South Africa's context, crises and conflict potentially lead to renewed national solidarity, focus, determination and joint resolve among key interest groups to work together to protect our fledgling democracy.

Crisis is a catalyst. Even though it's not advisable to wait to change, a crisis can jolt us into making changes and can prompt us into new ways of functioning in the world.

What is your view? Please add your comment …

New progressive political practice needed

2008-09-18T05:32:00.013Z

Progressive politics at the moment is a cauldron of uncertainty, change and disarray. The dynamics raise fundamental questions about politics. They also raise as deep questions about progressive politics and its capacity and methods for bringing into being a just world.

The Mbeki / Zuma clash forms a vibrant, dynamic and - to many - ominous backdrop. Interestingly, Polokwane raised the questions of the nature of politics and their implications for democratic change into the future. Polokwane and the antecedent debates broached the matter of: what kind of political party - utilizing what kind of internal political practices and external political priorities - would play the vangaurd role in sustaining the gains of liberation?

Worryingly though, Polokwane and post-Polokwane has been unable to provide answers to the questions it raised.

How we resolve our challenges in Mzansi will inform progressive politics much more widely (in the developing world). Who leads (who is the motive force for change), how such leadership is to be given to society and how any leading role is integrated into broader democratic politics - these are questions core to the sustainability of progressive politics.

We need a new praxis - the old has run into contradictions and fundamental problems. For me, there are three pointers as discussion and debate unfolds (or should unfold) regarding the renewal and reengineering of progressive politics.

Pointer 1: The first is the work of Ari Sitas (still to be published) around what he terms neo-Ghandi-ism. For Sitas, this family of ideas (which includes Frere-ism, Nyerere-ism and the key ideas in Ghandi’s political practice) revolves around voluntarism, co-operatives and non-violent popular action. He notes that historically and in anti-colonial struggles, neo-Ghandiism was trumped by Fanonism (informing a praxis dominated by violent overthrow and militarism). Many victories followed, but the gains made by the latter praxis now appear to be very short term.

Pointer 2. The second pointer is Joe Slovo's paper: Has Socialism Failed? The paper deals with the serious (fatal) ailments of communism as practiced in the Soviet Union; but it also refers to the role of democratic and left parties in driving society-wide change. Slovo raised pithy questions about how a party should behave internally and towards wider questions of democracy in society if it wanted to sustain transformation to a new society. Although debated in the Communist Party, this paper was largely ignored by the African National Congress. The lessons it put forward were not disputed nor rejected by progressive forces; they were simply neglected and not internalised. This paper ought to play a role in any refashioning of progressive politics.

Pointer 3: Here I refer to the range of issues, focuses and principles I have harped on about in my blogs and other writing. I believe this combination of ideas of ideas could be seen/used as an input to shaping a new politics. This blog is no a place for detail but the focuses and principles are:
- participation, and a leadership which responds well to broad and substantive partipation in policymaking processes.
- inclusiveness; in a world torn about by divisions, progressive parties should embrace inclusiveness and work towards social cohesion between estranged groups.
- a poverty focus; in this regard, progressive parties should lead in the fight against poverty. Furthermore, in addition to strategies focusing on the economy, they should use methods that prioritise involvement and participation of the poor.
- intellectual engagement; following the best traditions, progressive parties should encourage debate, should demand that leading activists engage with ideas and data and should subscribe to evidence-based policymaking when in government. Political practice and engagement, especially during election time, should be about real issues as opposed to mud-slinging and expediency associated with factionalism. Rationality should be encouraged, blind followership discouraged and debate valued.

South Africa is seen the world over as playing a leading role in building a world that is peaceful, where social justice prevails, where freedom and democracy replaces authoritarianism and where a dynamic citizenship is encouraged. Internally, however, we are at a major crossroads. This question has surfaced powerfully: what are the means to sustain our democracy? We have this year learnt bitterly that a new and "best of breed" constitution is not on its own the answer. Leadership, good politics and a progressive praxis - all these are vitally neccssary to sustain us on the path of transformation towards a winning nation.

What are your views? What kind of political practice is needed during the reign of Jacob Zuma to ensure progressive politics moves beyond crisis and continues to deepen democratic social change? Please add your views by leaving a comment.

Xenophobia and urban poverty a highly flammable mix

2008-05-28T10:13:00.001Z

This week, I have published a piece which argues that xenophobia and urban poverty combine to create an explosive mix. The article looks at the central place of urban informal settlements in the strife.

I also point out that the conflict is a struggle between poor and poor (it easier for those mobilizing to lash out at those closest to them and easiest to attack) and anger turned inward.

The article argues, furthermore, that the conflict has its roots in:
- deep-seated identity issues that are linked to conflict flashpoints occurring at various points in our history.
- a clash of expectations where locals are aspirational (they want a better life and good jobs now) whereas many poor immigrants are relatively happy to grab the crumbs that fall off the economic table.
- different approaches to entrepreneurialism (and notes that researchers suggest that immigrants are better hawkers and small traders than locals).

See the complete piece at www.saccis.org.za, a website of the South African Civil Society Information Service. The article is in the right hand column of the landing page.

Varied reflections on the xenophobic violence

2008-05-23T08:54:00.005Z

This week I provide a range of reflections, thoughts and varied comments on the xenophobic attacks sweeping Gauteng and rippling out to other parts of South Africa.

Participants in the mobs that have launched attacks on black foreigners in our townships have given several reasons why they want to drive immigrants from the rest of Africa out of their settlements. The following points need to be made in response to comments made/views about immigrants:

Allegation: Immigrants are taking our jobs: Many immigrants take jobs that others do not want. As I have argued elsewhere, there is a clash of expectations between locals and foreigners. The locals have aspirations for good jobs and a decent life now. They compare their lot with their advancement made by various layers of South Africans, and contrast their situation with the comforts of those who have benefited from economic growth. The immigrants, on the other hand, are bottom feeders; they will take crumbs that fall from the economic table. Immigrants also have certain rights to jobs in South Africa. Their countries' economies are so linked to our country and our economy; many of the goods sold and consumed in their countries are produced here. It is only logical that people do not want to sit in their own countries (confined to a role as consumers) and instead to relocate to where they can be involved in production. If globalisation permits/ thrives on /escalates the movement of money and goods, it is illogical to expect people to stay put within tightly controlled borders.

Allegation: They are taking housing that should be allocated to locals: It is South Africans that rent out their shacks and RDP houses to foreigners. This is in some ways a natural phenomenon – using one’s assets to add to household income; it is even what the capitalist system expects of smart people in the property market. Furthermore, if it is true that foreigners are getting state housing – ahead of locals whose names have been languishing on waiting lists – then housing and home affairs officials who are bending the rules should take the blame. These officials, their palms ‘greased’, are prepared to issue ID books or allocate houses to foreign nationals in violation of laws and regulations.

Allegation: They are taking our women: This is backward thinking. Such thinking is sexist and undermines the Constitution. It also ranks with the kind of perverse thinking that informed the Mixed Marriages Act under apartheid. Women have the right to choose their partners; they do not belong to a nation, and their choices about who to marry is not circumscribed by national interest. Surely those who make this allegation – and one must assume it is men – should be able to initiate romance and marriage with partners without expecting the government to implement a protectionism system to ensure an adequate supply of potential partners for them. Surely, sir/brother/mfowethu, you can win the affection of a potential partner without help from government or a violent mob. Women and feminists should be outraged at the shameless paternalism being shown towards women.

Crime has also been mentioned as an issue in the disturbances and attacks, though not always. It is argued that immigrants and immigration contribute to crime. Those punting this view find it much harder to sustain this argument, especially since South Africans are as involved in crime. Those making the allegation also don’t spell out whether they are referring to petty crime or (something which may have more merit, subject to evidence) the fact that – due to patterns of crime and international connections involved – members from certain groups may be disproportionately involved in certain types of sophisticated or organised crimes. Of course, if anyone has information of groups made up predominantly of either South Africans, Russians or Nigerians, etc., the targets of action (including co-operating with the relevant police units) should be specific persons and the specific sites from which such crimes are organized and perpetrated.

The South Africans that are swept up in the attacks appear to be old and young, women and men as well as ordinary community members (many of whom until now have been exemplary neighbours and engaged in community building). They are generally part of poor communities, but participants in the mob enjoy wider support: undefined numbers of people in the rest of society not directly involved in the attacks.

This support is rooted in fearful and negative attitudes towards immigrants, which attitudes are widespread. The pervasiveness of such attitudes is apparent from the following findings cited by Fact-a-Day (which draws on information from Future Fact 2006 and 2007):
• 69% of urban South Africans agree with the statement 'Immigrants are a threat to jobs for South Africans, they should not be allowed into the country.'
• 81% of urban South Africans agree with the statement 'South Africa should severely limit immigration into the country from troubled African countries.' (FutureFact 2007)

It is incredible how quickly prejudice can switch over from rhetoric and a largely passive outlook into a campaign of violent attacks. It’s amazing (and dangerous) how people lose their shyness for expressing perverse ideas – for example, that it is okay and even justifiable to violently attack foreigners – and how quickly such ideas spread.

Those who engage in racially-based attacks against people (as opposed to militant actions against systems and targeting physical objects owned by government or corporations) often see themselves as superior or better, or (in our case) even more worthy of human rights than their ‘prey’. But through their behaviour they manifest a deep deficiency. By wanton killing, they take part in and forge an alliance with evil and injustice. They are equally vulnerable, they have fears (and fears cloud understanding and perspective), and they are often not sufficiently aware of the (further) dehumanizing and brutalizing effect of violence on themselves. They also fail to understand how their actions will come back to haunt them when future generations in their immediate vicinity continue to address problems through destructive violence and the taking of lives.

Clearly the combined effect of poverty and worsening economic conditions for the poorest of the poor is the crucible for the wave of attacks. (I will deal with social and economic issues in a later piece). Protest action and a militant response to such conditions are understandable and warranted. However, there are choices in how we respond to circumstances - and in how we aim and deploy militant action; and the more we build community power and influence over developments in society, the more conscious we are of the choices open to us. Through organizing and debating prior to action, aggrieved groups widen possibilities regarding actions and for actions that can lead to sustainable and more fundamental social changes. And conversely, I am leery of social actions that are not based on internal democracy and controlled through democracy.

From a different angle, friends involved in esoteric work adopt different emphases in their understanding of the unfolding events. They zoom in on issues of dignity and self-esteem, and the way these are decimated in certain contexts of deprivation.

A highly regarded esoteric leader (who I won’t name because I don’t have permission to) argues that those who lack control over their lives undertake violence as a way of feeling more in control. In this regard, anger turns to violence; and dehumanization (erosion of the divine within) plays out in violent attacks on other people. Violence then (as the feminists have repeatedly pointed out) is about power and the exertion of power over others. The guru wonders at the extent of dehumanization and marginalization that exists in informal settlements, and which has now bred such viciousness and brutality.

Another argues that the problem is that “poor, hungry and desperate people” in informal settlements are “not seen” or have become invisible. She notes that when such people become invisible they can “stoop so low as to inflict torture on their fellow neighbours”. This translates, for her, into a need to reach out and show care (probably valid as an immediate response, I would argue) and recognizing the humanity (more valuable provided such recognition can lead to change in social structures and processes) of marginalized people.

I conclude by noting: In society, the attackers are not better than foreigners or immigrants, nor are we onlookers to the rampage better than the attackers (even as we express outrage at the attacks). We are all embroiled and so need to work together to deploy understanding, democratic solutions and decisive action to unravel the deep-seated tensions and conflicts.

Dear blog reader, what are your views? Please add your comments.

New united Black Consciousness political body to launch soon

2008-05-14T08:10:00.006Z

The united or unified Black Consciousness Movement is set to launch soon, possibly in next month.

The core of the story is not new; it has been a long and winding road towards unity for Azapo, the Socialist Party of Azania (Sopa) and the Black People’s Convention (BPC). The intent was expressed as far back as 2000, and there have been previous announcements indicating that progress has been made.

But now, and with Ishmael Mkhabela facilitating, the process has apparently moved past the point of no return. And with the launch, the main leaders – like PAC leaders when it launched in 1959 – will feel the pressure to perform and deliver.

The launch is a major achievement given the many differences that lay like potholes and snares along the path. Past hurts, angry divisions, the bitterness of jilted partnerships, prima donna-ism, clashes over what needs to be done – these were all there.

The parties are in some ways splinters off the same block; and apart from needing to sort out a common vision and a shared strategic view of SA, had to overcome (or at least manage) significant personality tensions during the talks.

I will be watching the launch with a hawk’s eye. I am less interested in who the leaders will be, the name of the new animal (both contentious issues during the talks, I am told) and where funding will come from. I am far more interested in what niches the new body will seek to occupy and what programmes are to be implemented.

Leaders involved in the talks have pointed to tensions and divisions in the ANC and the ANC’s tripartite alliance, and emphasize that now is a good time to form a strong, credible left-of-centre opposition. They even point to events unfolding in Zimbabwe – and have declared that a new force such as BCM would be ready to harvest the tons of disillusioned voters that the ANC would be shedding when a similar fracturing of the ruling party happens here. Regarding the next elections, some BC voices say: “Many former ANC supporters will be looking for a party to vote for in the next elections, and we’ll be there,” while others say, “I fear the unification has come too late to make an impact on the next election.”

However – as a strategy – capitalizing on the weakness of another party is insufficient. You also have to be clear about what you are “for”.

Thus, as the launch date approaches, one might ask:
- Will the main focus for the new entity be formal politics and fighting elections? (Indications are that the new formation will definitely take part in the next elections).
Will it, alternately, place more emphasis on an identity as a cultural-political movement, working primarily in the realm of ideas, education, consciousness, etc?
- Will the new player adopt a primary focus area and if so, what choice will be made between focus areas such as service delivery to the poor; justice and human rights issues and the challenge of ensuring access to justice for all, and; effective government institutions (and accountability in these terms)?
- Will it take part in government, if given the opportunity to do so, and as a key black consciousness figure, Mosibudi Mangena, a minister in Mbeki’s Cabinet is doing?.
Will it regularly take part in or initiate social mobilization, or will it eschew mass action in favour of using national parliament as a platform?
- Will leaders continue to throw around terms such as 'Scientific Socialism' as a key reference, as some did in early stages of the talks? And if so, how will they translate such a term so that it has practical relevance in the light of the day-to-day struggles of the marginalised? Does adherence to such an ideology mean, for example, that BCM will prioritise alliances with trade unions and privilege labour issues?
- What does black consciousness mean (BC) today? [In its hey day, BC played a key role (See my blog entitled Finding the ‘fit’ between Biko’s ideas and the Tambo path to freedom, 19/09/07). Together with worker and trade union action, it ignited resistance in highly repressive times when the struggle was at its lowest ebb. What will be its key message today? Now almost everyone can be ‘black conscious’; anyone can make a fist – even companies (that want to reach the mass market), mainstream radio stations, clothing brands, advertisers, fly-by-night colleges, funeral parlours, and so on].

The various parts of the BC movement are already scarred by their past encounters with such questions. Misreading the mood of the people, Azapo boycotted the first election - and arguably lost ground among the electorate. By the time they joined the electoral system, they could only muster enough support to win one seat in parliament.

Around 1994, Azapo was the main flag bearer for black consciousness. Then Lybon Mabaso, citing differences, broke away to form the Sopa in 1996. The party split further when some opposed (and Mosibudi Mangena accepted) an offer to participate in Mbeki’s government after the 1999 elections. Those unhappy with Mangena’s strategic stance formed BPC.

All the protagonists have since kissed and made up; but the new leaders will have to do more than hug each other and smile for the cameras on launch day and after. They will need to speak with one voice on strategic issues, display respect for a collective and shared leadership, and consistently demonstrate healthy ways of debating and reaching agreement when major differences arise.

As always, I ask: What do readers think? Will the new body make a major difference to the political scene in Mzansi? Please add your comment.

Government stirs the pot at launch of report on democracy at local government level

2008-05-09T12:12:00.003Z

Things are not good at local government level. That is, when measured against the requirements of good governance, according to a recently released report.

A network of NGOs, the Good Governance Learning Network (GGLN), launched its report yesterday in Johannesburg. The report follows eighteen months of research and is entitled ‘Local Democracy in Action: A civil society perspective of local governance in action’.

Based on the interplay of inputs from the presenter’s table, the launch was odd. This was so in the main because government caused a stir when it assumed the moral high ground and slammed the report for not being critical and provocative enough.

The presenter of the report, Terence Smith (who is also co-ordinator of the GGLN), made a number of key points arising from a substantial report that referred several times to the existence of a “crisis” at local government level.

Discussing democracy and participation, Smith noted that in many cases, participation (the obligation for community participation in local governance) was observed in the breach. The ward committee system – a key structure for citizen participation – was weak with these bodies lacking focus and meaningful decisionmaking power. Ward committees allow municipalities to meet formal obligations but “crowd out” more effective forms of participation, he noted. The Integrated Development Plans, although somewhat improved and lately “more credible”, remained a problematic area. According to Smith, the report asked whether IDPs had become too complex, and were a barrier to rather than an appropriate tool for community participation.

He referred to implementation of municipalities' indigent policy, observing that far too many deserving people are insufficiently aware of the benefits due to them. He stated further that local governments were generally doing poorly on local economic development, and that gains seemed to be generally confined to tourism-related initiatives.

Speaking as respondent, Idasa’s Steven Friedman, noted that reviews could either take a consultancy approach (“tweaking existing policies or approaches”) or a critical stance. He charged that the CGLN report was a good example of the consultancy orientation; it merely provided “helpful hints on how to tweak things”. However, he argued, the consultancy approach was ill-advised in a context where the existing policies were the cause of the governance problems and the crisis of confidence at local level. Friedman argued that NGOs should be far more critical and ought to be making full use of the relatively greater open political ‘space’ in South Africa today. Friedman criticised various aspects in the report: indigent policies (coupled with targeting and the means test) were demeaning and further marginalised the poorest; capacity building was not the answer to municipalities' skills problems - local goverment should simply do less; more effective citizen partipation will lead to better technical solutions.

Then government, through the Department of Provincial and Local Government Director-General, Ms Lindiwe Msengana-Ndlela, raised eyebrows when it questioned various aspects of the report. The director-general:
- observed that critical thought, coupled with alternative proposals, was necessary in debates about policy and practice.
- complained that the report did not highlight “best practice”.
- bemoaned that this report did not state “what should be discontinued”.
- said the report erred in devoting a major section to ‘service delivery’; this was a term government used -- NGOs should rather be talking more holistically about “development”.
- said she detected aspects of unfavourable agendas e.g. neo-liberalism and certain ideas from the past, and this caused her to scrawl “No, no” in pages in her copy of the report.
- lamented that the report was weighted in favour of “known issues”; she wanted a report that provide more new information.

There was limited discussion following the speakers’ presentation; it was, after all, a launch. But, over drinks, delegates mulled over the more provocative or, in the speakers’ own words, “impolite” comments that were left hanging in the air.

The government’s line at the launch was interesting. As one delegate to the launch noted: “It was if the government was saying: ‘These problems have nothing to do with us. Unless you can bring us a different report, a better or more critical report, we cannot even begin to consider or discuss what you think ought to be done by those in power’. In those terms, it was the neatest of tricks.

The launch featured a most unusual input by a government spokespersons at a function of partners and – even in the truncated discussion from the floor that followed – a remarkable avoidance of the pertinent issues at stake. Participants were left none the wiser about what is to be done about the report's stark judgement: that aside from local government elections, there is little by way of effective accountability, community participation and active citizen involvement in local governance taking place.

The launch was held at the Centre for Policy Studies. Participants in the network include CPS and various NGOs active in the field of local government issues.

The network’s criteria for good governance are:
- Democracy
- Responsibility
- Accountability
- Equitable service delivery and poverty reduction.

The GGLN receives backing from Mott Foundation, Ford Foundation and GTZ.

Great opportunity for intellectuals to play a bolder role

2008-05-07T11:24:00.002Z

It is a time of change and renewal – or, at the very least, a time of upheaval - in the continent and the country.

These are times when intellectuals – however defined – need to take stock of the role they will play. Their role in change processes is not an exclusive role – there are other forces at play, including class forces, popular forces, economic factors and shifts in global power relations. But given their role in mobilising new ideas – organizing interests, mobilizing consensus and, as Edward Said put it, changing minds and expanding markets – their potentially have a substantial part to play in moving things in positive and hopeful directions.

Intellectuals are active on many fronts, and operate extensively beyond the ‘traditional’ spheres of intellectual activity. They are used and deployed by all kinds of interests – in roles as consultants, journalists, professionals, policy advisors, marketers, makers of cultural products, and so on – and it is high time they reviewed what it means to be an intellectual and what responsibility necessarily accompanies this function.

From the progressive viewpoint, intellectuals should side with what is right, should be part of making a better world and should strive, as Said has noted, to combat prejudice, to advance justice and to be free of double standards as regards their attitudes to treatment of human beings.

Various voices have commented on the role of intellectuals in South Africa during its complicated transition process. President Thabo Mbeki has lamented that intellectuals are not playing their role and wept, so to speak, for black intellectuals. Xolela Mangcu hit back, arguing that the ruling party muzzled intellectuals, and has used its powers to restrict intellectual activity. Mangcu rails against (to lift from a chapter title in his recent book) "Mbeki's assault on black intellectuals". The dispute aside, there is agreement that, going forward, the country needs more vibrant debate, more open discussion of options and alternatives and more evidence-based engagement around burning issues.

There is now much more open space for discussion and debate in South Africa. This is so for various reasons. There has been a dramatic change in leadership at the ANC’s Polokwane conference last December – and it seems that since then, we regularly witness divergent positions emanating from within the ruling party on key policy matters. Leading up to Polokwane, a surge of grassroots pressure has thrown wide open the debate about the pace and the methods of social change.

Furthermore, the winds of change battering Zimbabwe seems to be good for the democratic climate in other regional countries. We in South Africa must face up to the possibility of a second transformation in recently-liberated countries; and we must discuss under what conditions that may occur (or should occur), and what the political goals of such a change should be. Also in the present period, various societal issues – resurgence of racism, service delivery crises – are coming to the boil and a range of governance issues demand attention – the role of parastatals; the relationship between parliament(s) and the executive.

It is a good time for intellectuals. They can be in the fray as South Africa’s precious democracy – so robust in many ways and yet so fragile in parts – gets reengineered.

They can play a much more prominent role. They can be much more vocal, they can, to a greater extent, stand up for generally recognized human rights, eschew narrow interests, transgress when blind compliance is required; they can debate and ask questions, speak with/for the marginalized and – most of all – encourage democratic debate.

Intellectuals can play a dynamic role in fanning the democratic participation that seems to be a prerequisite for the economically vibrant, well-functioning, just and winning society we are building.

For intellectuals, the moment is ripe to be in the forefront of generating ideas and options to sustain/improve our democracy and to vastly improve service-delivery to the poorest. To contribute to getting better policies, to ensuring better policy implementation, to strengthening accountability systems and to expansion of effective leadership in government departments.

Speaking as a progressive (and admitting my bias), intellectuals have the opportunity – more than ever – to be clear about supporting our democratic transformation as it strives to eradicate the pain and division of the past and build a prosperous and just future for all.

Leadership lessons: finding meaning in the regional crises

2008-04-28T10:50:00.003Z

There are major leadership issues in Southern Africa. This is exemplified in events in Zimbabwe, at Eskom and the recent positions taken by SADC on the Zimbabwean crisis. All these flashpoints illustrate that when leaders and leadership fail, the public gets the short end of the stick (and endure additional and unnecessary pressure, burdens and suffering).

In Zimbabwe, the main political leaders have taken advantage of the population for many years; at the same time, these leaders in the ruling party have managed to get vast numbers of Zimbabweans to continue to vote for them in successive elections. At present, the ruling party, Zanu-PF, with its controlling tentacles in all state institutions, has stifled release of election results and has for many weeks blocked the ascension of a new government into power. In the April elections, Zimbabweans have at last exercised their vote to remove Zanu-PF from office; however, ordinary Zimbabweans, by and large, still shy away from using non-violent means to restore proper functioning of democratic institutions and an to end to repression.

At Eskom, with electricity blackouts arising from a lack of planning and poor strategic management, the leadership has failed to assume responsibility in any substantial sense. The Eskom debacle raises the following: Are institutions accountable to anyone; do they subscribe to any sense of minimum performance requirements for such a strategic entity; do they subscribe to a formerly adopted notion of leadership? If they were and did, how can the organization simply concede failure without any actions – a suspension, a firing, a withholding of bonuses or (at the most limpwristed) a pro forma rebuke of a person or committee – to indicate that the parastatal subscribes to high leadership standards.

The SADC fails to take bold leadership action when a more courageous position is required in the interests of regional justice and regional stability. It would appear a kind of “club” loyalty, and sometimes a historical solidarity between heads of state, takes precedence. Certainly, we can see that regional leaders and heads of state would want to be polite and “chommie-chommie” with each other, but should they protect each other at all costs? Should they avoid speaking up during a regional crisis or in the face of a member state’s systematic viciousness against its citizens? The people of the region have expectations of SADC. These expectations will never be fulfilled if the SADC does not see itself as a body that must provide bold leadership, if it does not set membership ground rules and if the collective does not require that members be in good standing in terms of such rules.

When leaders go off the rails, especially national leaders, it is often not just leaders that are failing; in many cases it is in fact a failure of the entire leadership system.

In situations of such failure - depending on how followers react - a big question mark often hangs over followers. A good leadership culture requires followers that are active, on their toes and alert about what they are entitled to. Whether we like it or not, we as followers get the quality of leadership we deserve/ are prepared to work for/ are prepared to struggle for. We get the leadership systems that we are prepared to build and sustain. A failure of leadership may also suggest that an erosion of leadership and of leadership culture in political parties and other influential organizations. In such formations, systems of accountability and succession planning may not be functioning properly and are most likely not working to replace moribund leaders who are out of touch with the current context.

Finally, the collapse of leadership culture may mean that formal institutions are failing; institutions set norms and boundaries for what leaders may or may not do. When leadership problems take the form of excesses – attacks on human rights, corruption, misuse of powers, failure to fulfill a legal duty to act – institutions measures should kick in and ensure corrective action is taken. However, if perverse and destructive leadership hangs around for years or decades, their hands firmly on the reins of power, then key institutions urgently need rebuilding or rejuvenation.

Leadership as discussed here includes but is broader than the skills, behaviors and performance of individual leaders. Leadership should be seen as:
a system;
a set of relationships; or
a culture (in the sense of agreed norms and practices).

In this regard, leadership can be seen as the expectations we have, the consequences which follow poor leadership and the demand for good leadership.

It is necessary to refer to expectations as they refer to the standards that prevail in the community or in companies regarding leadership. However, “expectations” are still relatively passive - necessary but insufficient. Just having them says nothing about what happens when leadership expectations are disappointed. If “consequences” (e.g. that you be stripped of your leadership position in certain circumstances) as well as the “demand” for good quality leadership are part of the process, it would speak of a more vibrant leadership culture.

From this, one can see how important followership is. What are the things that make up good followership? I suggest these aspects are important: A sense that you are entitled to good leadership, being alert and critical, voting in an intelligent manner, calling on leaders to provide information and reportback, mutual accountability between leaders and followers, and openly expressing views on issues so leaders know what followers feel and think.

I hope these reflections contribute in a small way to an agenda for change in Southern Africa. To a process that moves us beyond crises and towards fulfilling the potential of the region. If we can draw out critical lessons about governance in the region, then maybe – just maybe – there will be some meaning in the crises we are experiencing.

As usual, readers comments and replies are welcomed!

Let's keep tackling racism - taking the medicine is necessary

2008-04-13T22:45:00.006Z

On racism, South Africa is a bit like the TB patient who, because the medicine has started to kick in, presumes he is cured, celebrates early and stops taking his medicine. Just because so many things were better, many of us somehow imagined that centuries of racism was no longer a problem in Mzansi (South Africa).

But in recent times – at long last – there has been a ringing wake up call. The UFS incident – the racist and sadistic form of the loutish student behavior at that university – has shocked the nation. And it has revealed how racism, like the eggs and infant offspring of Godzille, is alive and seething below the urbane surface of South Africa. This weekend, apart from additional racist attacks (such as the skinhead-type attack on a DA leader and his wife), Afrikaner writers confirm the existence and vibrancy of racism (see below).

There seemed to be little appetite to discuss race and racial issues in the last 10 to 13 years. Those who tried to foreground the issue often walked a gauntlet of abuse – including accusations that they themselves were being racist.

Thus, in the post 1994 period:
a)The Democratic Alliance equated any discussion of racism and racist attitudes with the playing of “the race card”. Their stance was matched by responses from certain volk artists and some Afrikaner rightwing parties who believed the real issue was the marginalization of Afrikaners and their language in the new SA. How pathetic can (some) former oppressors be? As Max du Preez says: “Meneer en mevrou, haal ten minste die witbrood (of sale ek eerder se die BMW en vakansiehuis) onder jou arm uit voordat jy jou lot so bitterlik bekla …” Despite crime which affects us all, he tells Afrikaners in effect to “get a life”: “(D)ie verlies aan mag is die onafwendbare gevolg van die einde van wit oorheersing” (Beeld, 12/04/08).

b) There was skepticism, irate reaction and lack of appreciation when President Thabo Mbeki raised the issue of race in Parliament in 2004 and at other times. It is interesting to note that – since the UFS debacle – the President has maintained silence on the matter. Maybe he believes that he has done his bit; in earlier times, his efforts were rewarded with media accusations that he was unceremoniously dumping Nelson Mandela's reconciliation vision. The rest of the public, including the general black community, remained silent. A senior figure in the HRC commented to me then that, since it was the country's President raising the issue, people probably felt too intimidated to pick up the discussion and openly express themselves on the issue. He noted that it would be better if discussion on racism was initiated from another quarter.

c) The Human Rights Commission has recoiled from substantial, sustained and proactive work around race and anti-racism in the last decade or more. For South Africa, having a Constitution that is non-racist and non-racial is a great achievement. However, institutional mechanisms (programmes, budgets and responsible people) are needed to convert what the Constitution envisages into reality. These “operational” elements are important in a situation where state-supported racial oppression has ruled the roost for centuries. The Human Rights Commission and the Justice Department should be carrying out the developmental and change management work necessary for building non-racialism. Words like education, awareness and “good practice” guidelines come to mind; so do words such as research and dialogue.

d) Indications are that many top black people, the high achievers, themselves wanted to be shot of talk of race and racism. They wanted to shut it out. It was a bad experience that they wished to put behind them. They would rather talk of poverty and disadvantaged people than racism or racial discrimination. They feel uncomfortable when race issues are mentioned and, as it were, they have to take a position which might be controversial. They would rather focus on making money than getting into controversial discussions with other people – colleagues or superiors on the other side of the fence – who have so much real and residual power. For these high flyers, discussing race sidetracks from their achievements, from their individual abilities and from their desire to be accepted as top performing and value adding individuals in the capitalist world.

e) For the media generally, discussion of racism was not sexy. Each story of racially based abuse (for example, violent attacks on defenceless farmworkers by white bosses) was treated as an isolated incident. Probing the family and community attitudes that informed or condoned such attacks was apparently uninteresting or un-newsworthy. Much of the media went further: any discussion of race was condemned as a ploy. In terms of that stance, much too simplistically, anyone wanting to stimulate discussion of racism was really attempting to avoid investigation of corruption or plotting to muzzle the free press.

f) Most foreign donors wanted to savour the SA miracle. They did not want discussion of continued racial oppression to disturb this (rare) taste of nirvana. Working for decades, investing millions in programmes that show limited success in life's bigger scheme, they wanted and needed a success story. For them, the time had come to focus on development issues (as distinct from political issues [such as race] that would need explaining to Foreign Affairs back home). Focusing on continued racist practice on farms, on the experience of black children at university, on the racial implications of the school system in South Africa, just did not fit with the dominant picture. And so, funding for NGOs dealing with racism and promoting diversity and pluralism dried up. And so such NGOs declined or went to the wall.

g) A whole rainbow industry emerged. This included the advertising industry, do-gooders and well-meaners and the highly paid image makers/branders in our society. In this context, there would be no social responsibility funds – either from parastatals and corporations - to address racist attitudes and practices. In other words, it was expected that racial ideology would somehow simply fade away, all on its own, without assistance from any quarter. What the marketers and newsouthafrica spin-doctors do not realize is this: we can hug the vision of the rainbow nation and at the same time continue to be alert to how racism might continue to live below the surface (in our homes and in institutions), influencing our behaviour and attitudes.

Just to conform that racism is not just a figment of in the minds of some spoilsports or confined to the University of Free State incident, this past weekend
• The Sunday Times carried a story about young white Afrikaners using the World Wide Web (Facebook) to propagate racist views and their opposition to democratic SA. So strident is language (bordering on hate speech) and racist rhetoric on the forums concerned that other Afrikaners are lobbying to have them shut down.
• The Sunday Times editor, Mondli Makhanya, alleged that a former columnist – one hailed as a blue eyed boy by tens of thousands of white readers – maintained the controversial view “essentially that black people are indolent savages”.
• In Beeld, Johann Rossouw, in an article trying to understand root causes, confirms the increasing racism among young Afrikaners (“die toenemende rassisme wat .. vandag onder [jonger] Afrikaners voorkom”.)
• In the same edition of Beeld, Max du Preez (who anticipated he would get tons of abusive mail from fellow-Afrikaners for his views) notes that “black South Africans are all too aware of the extent to which white people regard them as inferior”.
(Of course, the latter views show that there are no solid monolithic blocs for and against racism and, although racism is widespread, there is enormous potential for South Africans from different background to unite against the scourge).

In all of this, the upside is that more of us are rubbing the sleep from our eyes and seeing again the reality of racism plus the need for concrete programmes and initiatives to combat racism.

A website that blows the cobwebs off research papers

2008-04-08T20:35:00.001Z

The webside www.dissertation.com is such a good idea: it takes research work produced as part of studies (usually subsidised by public sector funds) and makes it more widely available.

Okay, access is not completely gratis: after accessing a certain number of free pages, you are encouraged to buy the full text. But it does make visible/available knowledge and analysis that would otherwise gather dust on the shelves or in the archives of universities.

I have consequently placed the research piece from my Masters degree on this site. Although a little dated now, it deals with issues of poverty in the urban area, survival strategies of the poor and prospects for vibrant city economies in Africa. It is entitled: Informalisation as a Strength. Community Survival Systems and Economic Development in the African City.

Check it out. Location:
www.dissertation.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599426641

Or you might simply want to visit www.dissertation.com to see what other thinking work is available there.

Let's err on the side of giving FBJ the space to mobilise

2008-04-08T18:03:00.003Z

I usually agree with Jody Kollapen, chairperson of the Human Rights Commission; he usually has a particularly good take on the SA set up. And his articulation of issues often promotes deeper understanding of the aspects involved.

But I differ with his finding on whether the Forum of Black Journalists has a right to organize on the basis of black solidarity.

Kollapen was today reporting back on an investigation into this matter following a complaint by white journalists at Radio 702 regarding a “blacks only” FBJ launch event held recently. Kollapen reported that the HRC saw no problem with limiting attendance at an event to members only. It took issue, more fundamentally, with the (blacks only) membership policy of the FBJ. Such a policy position was unconstitutional, Kollapen argued.

The HRC findings are technically correct and well argued. The findings are also strongly consistent with the “ideal” – and with the desired end state of positive social engagement and interaction in South Africa.

But the findings overlook the following:
• The fact that SA is in transition and that, in key areas, that transition is painfully slow, as Kollapen himself argued recently.
• The historical context, including the fact that in the past there was general acceptance and respect for the decision of certain liberation organizations to use racial exclusion in their membership policies.
• That the Constitution emphases socio-economic rights and dignity as much as it does non-racialism; are we also prepared to declare policies that promote inequality, such as privatization of the provision of basic services, “unconstitutional”?
• That black and white people rarely come together in common forums to forge common objectives, often seem ignorant of the fact they are working towards the same objectives; rarely engage each other in open debate to debunk/challenge assumptions, stereotypes and preconceptions.
• That, in this context, many may feel that the best way to focus energies advance objectives is to unite those who are affected in the same way about an issue.
• The implications of the finding for women’s organizations; there are many instances where – even though the HRC may interpret the country’s Constitution in the same way for them – women may feel they can marshal their energies better if they do not have to deal with the dynamics unleashed by the participation of men.

The findings are thus hard-edged (at a time when we are just starting to open the space for debate on “race”) and bordering on the coercive (in a situation where strong pointers, recommendations and a developmental finding might work better). We cannot get non-racial practice by decree – not when social cohesion and inter-group interaction remains severely limited (and certainly not while there is such a paucity of interventions to promote anti-racism, discussion of race in society and social cohesion).

I believe that - especially if the ultimate aims are outcomes like non-racialism and justice - people should as far as possible/reasonable, be permitted to organize in ways that are relevant for them.

I can see what the HRC wants to do: it wants to drive the society towards non-racialism. I can see the implications for its ruling for political and non-political organisations, clubs that would want to exclude people simply on the basis of race. But, with an eye to the historical development of political organisations of the disadvantaged and given the imperatives of free expression and association, I believe there should be a sunset provision. I believe that organisations - including particularly those bodies whose target group is people who have been specifically affected by oppressive racial legislation - should be given a period of, say, a year to 18 months to make the required changes to membership policy. Such a period of transition should run from case by case complaints or - provided the HRC rolls out a general public engagement and information-dissemination process beforehand - a general HRC ruling or pronouncement.

That is my contradictory position: I say Jody has got it wrong; at the same time, I laud him as a leader and a key thinker on issues of justice.

Do you agree with my views as expressed here? Please feel free to post your reply.

Zuma makes headway as succession battle boils over

2007-11-27T10:25:00.000Z

The ANC succession battle is reaching its peak.

All the indications are that Jacob Zuma is set to become ANC president. That assertion is important with implications that reverberate widely. A powerful lobby has built up in the ANC against the current top leadership and - according to Mac Maharaj - against the dominant style and politics in the party. Indeed the sentiments and attitudes concerned have become a mighty force. Zuma benefits from the changing mood - but he has also demonstrated political skill in welding various interests groups in the movement into a coherent grouping.

The mobilisation for a new leadership arrangement, one that distinguishes itself from the dominant and closely knit group around President Thabo Mbeki, has taken place over a long period of time. It reached a high water mark at the ANC's National General Council last year when official plans to suspend Zuma as an ANC Deputy President were scuttled by the broader ANC leadership.

The following key points need to be made:

- Initially the flurry of support for Jacob Zuma could be characterised as mainly a reaction to Mbeki and his core team. This has now changed; the initial groundswell has been built into a substantive political platform with a defined agenda and with intensive support for Jacob Zuma as a leader per se. The support for Zuma has thus been transformed from from shallow to deep.

- Many in the Mbeki camp are now taking Jacob Zuma and his chances to ascend to power very seriously. This means that we are likely to see additional erosion of support from Mbeki to Zuma. Indeed the recent voting at provincial level shows how the Zuma camp is benefiting from the gradual shifts that are currently taking place. In the days to come, undecided voters and some Mbeki supporters are more likely to "jump ship" into the Zuma camp. Needless to say, it seems that many emergent ANC leaders would rather be in the winning group than be in the wilderness and lose out on government positions when the Zuma camp ascends to political power. In this regard, large dollops of personal interests must be factored into the moves and positioning of leaders at branch level and upwards.

- Personal interest and ambition must also be taken into account when trying to understand why the ANC Women's League, in its nomination vote, dumped Mbeki as candidate in favour of Jacob Zuma. In making its decision, the League left many in the Mbeki camp "shocked". Its nomination decision also caused consternation among feminist and women's organisations, many of which have been highly critical of Jacob Zuma especially after certain comments that Zuma made during the rape trial (in which he was acquitted).

- There is likely to be feverish and intensive lobbying on the day before the actual voting at the ANC's December elective conference. Indications are that offers - positions, rewards and incentives - will form part of the maneuvering, discussion and horse-trading. So one should always remain open to some surprises and changes in the precise strength of support for either Zuma or Mbeki. However, all the signs are that such shifts will be "too little, too late" to change the main patterns of support that obtain presently.

- The Zuma camp is clearly brimming with confidence. It has already begun addressing how it will structure itself and what it will be required to rule the country. Its organising teams have been extending their campaign work to include the task of sourcing support, resources and expertise that would be required to constitute an effective Zuma presidency.

- The policy directions being punted by the Zuma camp include greater government interaction with civil society, a more meaningful role for the tripartite alliance, a clearer emphasis on a developmental state (an emphasis in recent years shared by the Mbeki group) and greater transparency regarding the use of state agencies to clamp down on ANC leaders.

In addition to all of the above, there are also rumours that a group of Cabinet Ministers (who are generally viewed as part of the Mbeki camp) have approached Zuma to clear the air and to present themselves as neutral. "What have we done to make you view us your enemy?" the group asked Zuma as they pleaded for him to accept that they are not opposed to him. These leaders clearly want Zuma to note their willingness (eagerness?) to assist him and work with him should he come to power. By extension, they are declaring their openness to being wooed by the Zuma camp ahead of the crucial December leadership vote.

The Zuma camp must now work feverishly to repackage Zuma to make him more acceptable to sceptical audiences outside the ANC and internationally. Their challenge is to change the primary associations that spring to mind when the wider public think of Zuma -- to change the dominant mental picture from Zuma the person involved in corruption and the man with question marks about his views of women to Zuma to the leader with important strengths to lead the country into its next phase of development. Not an easy task by any means. Zuma has consequently launched a major charm offensive. He is devoting a great deal of time to engage key interest groups locally and has, for example, travelled abroad in the last week as part of a process of "selling" his leadership and vision further afield.

Given the array of forces within the ANC supporting Jacob Zuma to assume the role of president of the ANC, the Zuma train won't be derailed before December and is well on its way to its destination.

As always, please share your your views by adding your comment.

Pikoli suspension adds to turmoil and confusion

2007-10-10T02:28:00.000Z

It is difficult to comment on the suspension of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Vusi Pikoli, without merely adding to the reams of speculation. But I have been asked by blog readers to address this matter. In this piece, however, I prefer to focus on the general, rather than the detail which will in any case be dealt with in the inquiry headed by Frene Ginwala.

The suspension will feed into diverse and divergent views regarding how President Thabo Mbeki as a leader is read and understood. The issue of his leadership style and his legacy has been canvassed in books by William Gumede and Ronald Suresh Roberts. Is he a ruthless leader who deals swiftly and decisively with his opponents, or a visionary president and one of Africa’s greatest thought leaders? Another book many years in the pipeline, by Mark Gevisser, is also set to tackle these matters when it eventually hits the bookshelves. The suspension of Pikoli, coming so soon after the dismissal of Deputy Minister Noziswe Madlala-Routledge, certainly further muddies the waters as far as these assessments are concerned.

The suspension is indirectly or directly linked to the succession battle. This battle is engendering a widespread contaminating effect. It is the cause of much of the rot (where rot refers to infighting, factionalism and inexplicable divisions) in the ruling group. The succession struggle is bringing many issues that have been bubbling under the surface to a head. These issues relate to shifts in values and the ethos within the ruling party; the impact of class differences at the base of the ANC; the drive for rapid accumulation among some ANC leaders and deep disagreement about processes for resolving internal differences in the ANC.

Ambition is afoot and there seem to be no guidelines in place that inform how such ambitions plays out.

It is clear that the knives are out. Some are already the subject of mudslinging and damaging leaks while others tailor or conceal their positions bearing in mind that a wrong move can damage their prospects for more senior political or governmental positions in the future.

Some added reflections:

a) There has been poor handling of the suspension. Mbeki is normally a master strategist, one who is usually several moves ahead of the opponent. In this case, he does not seem to have been well served by either his office or government communications. Pikoli's suspension seemed to be accompanied by a poor media strategy. Media 101 will tell you that on matters of great import you provide a background briefing to several key journalists, press statements are prepared, a person is deployed to provide sound bites, and spokespersons are primed to deal with all anticipated media questions. In this case – and uncharacteristically so – for government communications, many of these things were apparently not in place.

b) There is now a need for a further response, beyond the immediate requirements of managing fallout on the specific issue. Now people want someone senior to acknowledge that there is consternation and turmoil in the land. They want to hear the captain from the deck give his view on the state of things and the way forward in these confusing times. Is this not the time to have the President or a designated Minister address a variety of concerns (to rally the national mood, as it were) through a special public service announcement?

c) The approach of some government officials needs to be addressed. Apparently some officials cannot distinguish between legalism and leadership and prefer to trot out bureaucratic and technical answers in situations where greater responsiveness is required. On a number of occasions, when there is widespread concern about a particular issue and an appeal for more information, public officials respond with a legal response. They retort that the letter of the law does not require the executive to explain or give information. That may be so, but what has happened to leadership and the open and consultative ethos that underlies our democracy? If public officials continue to punt this line, the result will be greater alienation of people from the political process.

The current period is a major turning point in all sorts of ways. In one sense, in the view of a senior ANC person I spoke to recently, the present developments in politics indicate that the “(transformation) project is in crisis”. Others prefer to see the conflict, confusion and fragmentation of leadership in the high echelons of the ruling party as the “growing pains” of democracy. Whichever way one looks at it, we need to find a way out of the turmoil and to restore confidence in political leadership.

Poverty remains an urgent issue for SA

2007-10-01T09:39:00.000Z

Poverty in South Africa remains an enormous challenge; it has a dimming effect on the compelling brightness associated with the achievement of democracy in Mzansi and hobbles advancement towards success in relation to many important national objectives.

A researcher working in the Presidency, Neva Makgetla, reports that millions of households merely survive. Using one indicator (income poverty) and 2005 statistics, she notes that about half the population spends less than R800 a month (Business Day 26 September 2007). It is also reported that about a quarter of South Africans, well over 10 million people, are ultra poor (see the work of Michael Aliber, Access and the Global Poverty Research Group).

One may distinguish between three ways of analyzing the seriousness of the poverty problem. The one view puts the emphasis on reports of a reduction in poverty. There seems to be agreement among many, including Neva Magketla and HSRC researcher Michael Aliber, that there has been some reduction in poverty. Aliber says research shows, inter alia, a decline in the number of kids that are suffering hunger. He says social grants and government service delivery are driving this reduction in poverty.

A second view is highly critical of government and emphasizes the depth of poverty. This view, as I heard someone put it, holds that “Mbeki has undertaken no major redistribution of resources in society”. This perspective posits that what was achieved in terms of infrastructure delivery and other government “wins” since 1994 are merely marginal changes to the main social relations. Ironically, this line is to some extent supported by government’s own Ten Year Review (2004) which drew attention to South Africa’s two economies: one globally competitive and the other home to the millions who are unskilled, jobless, often unemployable and firmly in the clutches of poverty.

A third approach starts from a critical look at how government resources in particular are being deployed. This line of thinking would note that a careful and detailed analysis exposes gaps, raises important questions and points to missed opportunities related to the quest of systematically slashing poverty figures. The gaps include human resource problems in the civil service, weakness in a significant proportion of local governments, provinces inability to spend their budgets, and perennial problems with, for example, the National Development Agency and institutions set up to support entrepreneurs. In this viewpoint – which I subscribe to – the focus is less on a critique of the ANC; the stress is rather on measuring ourselves against the highest goals and against the challenges represented by population growth, by the marked increase in household numbers, and the challenges posed by urbanization. This perspective argues that while we have made advances, we must be critical about the pace and momentum of change.

These are not just theoretical or negligible questions. It is also stupid to take the view – as many in a capitalist society do – that “the poor are always with us” and that somehow the social system works fine and is able to cope well enough despite poverty afflicting many people. Poverty feeds into and compounds other societal problems.

Ongoing poverty, and the rise of impatience in so many communities, will affect the functioning of local democracy. In many localities, conflict resolution mechanisms are urgently needed before normal community consultation processes can be brought back on track.

Poverty undermines the input that parents ought to make into the learning of their school-going children. For millions of parents, the realities of being poor often constitute a major barrier to helping children with schoolwork and to participation in school governance activities.

HIV/Aids rolls back national development gains and, for those directly affected, adds to community and household poverty. In addition, the conditions in poor communities presupposes giving attention to particular requirements when devising programmes for treatment, for care and support and for positive living among the infected; otherwise such programmes will be largely ineffectual.

Poverty undermines nationbuilding and social cohesion. Instead of the racially divided communities in cities and towns moving closer together, as they should within the new democracy, they drift further apart in the context of inequality and the continuing problems of social exclusion.

Poverty impedes the advance of progressive agendas such as sustainable housing, preventative health rather curative health care and vibrant local economic development that includes effective support for local entrepreneurs.

It goes without saying that poverty is a problem to poor people themselves. It is also an injustice to them (… you can see from this that I reject the view that the poor and the unemployed are to blame for their poverty and unemployment). It chokes their life chances and makes people die younger. The poor must endure deprivation, hardship, stresses, shocks as well as continuous attacks on their dignity. For the poor person, despite family and community moments filled with all that is good in life, daily life is often a cross to be carried rather than a celebration and a fulfillment of selfhood.

In addressing poverty, the new democracy can take some pride in what has been achieved so far, but there is no space or time to rest on laurels. We must quickly and smartly build on what has been achieved so far. Innovative strategies, constant review of mechanisms and, most important of all, a greater sense of urgency among many more stakeholders is required.

Proteas need new captain. Why not Ntini?

2007-09-26T09:45:00.000Z

The South African cricket team – for cricket’s sake – needs a new captain. I suggest that it should be Makhaya Ntini.

Ntini has tons of experience, has scooped top cricketer awards locally and internationally, is level-headed, is a great motivator and has steadily honed his temperament to lead. Over the years, Ntini’s has been the goading voice, boosting flagging spirits in the toughest of games. He is the ideal player to guide and support the younger and newer players in the national side.

Our gum-chewing captain, Graham Smith, is a good opening batsman and will continue to be an asset to the Proteas; but he is not captain material. He appears to lack the qualities needed to lead the team, to get the players to focus and to draw out their greatness.

Under him, the Proteas are languishing. The South Africans are not short of talent; their problem revolves around mindset issues. The team struggles to retain its focus and its collective sense of self-belief during critical matches.

When the team is riding high and thrashing the other side, it's all hunky dory, team spirit is up and they play like world beaters; but when the chips are down, it's another story. In the face of setbacks and when the going gets difficult on the field, they are unable to stay focused, sustain team spirit and wear down the opposition through patience, excellent fielding and doggedly doing the basics right.

Some have referred to this as choking. I don’t like the term “choker”; such a put-down adds insult to injury, and has a fatalistic ring to it. But we must confront the team's recent propensity to lose heart when tension and pressure mounts. We have seen shoulders sagging, glum faces, a loss of fighting spirit and a slew of fielding errors when a different attitude could still have turned a particular game in their favour. At one stage in the last Twenty20 game against India, we needed 26 from 16 balls (not to win, but to progress to the semi-finals); with nothing left to lose, the batsmen at the crease couldn’t muster the boldness and drive required. They simply continued aiming for a run or two a ball – and thus we were bundled out of the competition.

At times such as these, it is clear, Smith’s captaincy is unable to bring out the best in the team. In addition, he has sometimes made patently wrong decisions (of whether to bat or bowl first) and – on occasion - seemed not to have been aware, or informed his teammates in time, that we needed a certain number of runs to win or stay in the contest. Under his watch, also, Herschelle Gibbs was moved around - with detrimental effects on the latter's game. Poor decisions were also taken in relation to AB de Villiers who replaced Gibbs as opener. De Villiers, who will one day have the mentality requred of an opening batsmen delivering consistently good performances, should have been positioned lower down the order, and perhaps given a season or two to play alongside a Pollock or Kallis.

At the start, Smith’s captaincy was complemented by Jacque Kallis and, to a lesser extent, Shaun Pollock. But Smith is overdependent on, for example, the experience and solidity of Kallis. Kallis and Pollock, brilliant as they are, will not be youthful or available forever. Smith needed to bring forth/mentor other talent that can steady the team when top order wickets have fallen and it is he, as captain, that ought to be effectively guiding and supporting younger players in the heat of a match.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni gave us a salient lesson in cricket captaincy. Leading the Indian team in the Twenty20, he demonstrated superbly the importance of captaincy and its tremendous value add: he showed, par excellence, how captaincy contributes to team character and grit, and how these factors win games.

In a life-and-death game and when the team is in a wobble, a good captain (regardless of whether he loses wicket or bowls a loose ball) is somehow apart from the wobble; his guidance, calmness and leadership is something that other players can hold on to. With a team of younger players and with the likes of Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid left at home, Dhoni excelled as captain and was my man of the tournament. In the case of Smith, on the other hand, he seemed just a part of the wobbling and sense of panic in the game we lost.

I ask: how much longer must we endure the spectacle of the Proteas making a good start and then bombing out?

I think Ntini is the man for the hour. It would be a shame if only prejudice prevents us from properly considering this solid cricketer. Sure, Ntini is not at his peak at the moment. However, when Smith was made captain, he was completely off form and frequently went out for zero or single figures. If we made Ntini captain, I am convinced, he will rise to the leadership challenge and simultaneously raise his game.

Do you agree with my assessment? Share your views by submitting a comment.

Pregs Govender survives political pressures to tell a tale of courage

2007-09-20T12:28:00.000Z

Love and Courage: A story of insubordination, a book about the life and times of former ANC parliamentarian Pregs Govender, is an important record, filled with insights.

The writing is a cut above Govender’s occasional opinion pieces where flashes of passion and inspiration are frequently offset by stilted and preachy segments. Love and Courage exemplifies a better way to write about ideological issues (such as socialism, feminism and political economy) for the wider public. By telling a story, and by discussing values, principles and vision as they are deployed in events and real-life situations, we give life to concepts and big ideas.

This book is well put together and reveals talented and evocative writing, leavened by a good number of wry observations. It chronicles Govender’s life and the factors that shaped her evolution as parent, feminist and hard-core activist. Growing up in a racially divided Durban, in circumstances ranging from poor to lower middle class, Govender’s teacher parents were a big influence and she imbibed her early political awareness from her father, the inimitable Ronnie Govender, playwright and author of At the Edge and Other Cato Manor Stories.

The task of completing Love and Courage could not have been easy for Govender. The appeal and power of biographical writing lies in the way it interrelates the subjective and the objective, the private and the public - and in the capacity to reveal feelings and personal development alongside discussion of the big issues. But putting oneself in the spotlight is difficult, more so for a high-profile and somewhat controversial figure. Will your approach be defensive, will you be self-deprecating in parts so as to avoid charges that you take yourself too seriously, how will you deal with antagonists (or people close to you who harmed you) who have no chance in the text to reply?

It is all managed pretty well in this book. Govender speaks openly about life and the challenges and hurdles she faced - including problems with her first marriage, its humiliations and the emotionally-taxing fallout. She tellingly conveys the messiness of politics. In her story, there was pain and points of sheer burnout, but she soldiered on in both her work and personal life, all the while enhancing her organizational and leadership capabilities. She has accomplished much and there is a sense that many - in the women’s movement and beyond - regard her as an inspirational figure.

In the book, she comes across as squeaky clean – as one who almost always does the right thing, and never regrets any choices made. But this comes across as bona fide and innocent, rather than deceptive. From what I know of Govender, this is the way she is and how she is viewed by those who know her. There is no doubt that she dedicated her life to the struggle. Govender is strongly value-based in all she does, and when she looks back on various aspects, her orientation is to appreciate what she has learnt from the diverse experiences and the key life stages. In fact, because she is such a “salt of the earth” person, her adversaries in the ANC find that mud does not stick to her – and are frustrated that they can harass and needle, but are never able to deliver a final, vanquishing blow.

From the onset – in fact from the title, which indicates that “insubordination” is part of her identity - the book surfaces the tension between insubordination and adherence to party discipline.

This dilemma may be summed up as follows: Most times your strong convictions fit in well with the party; but at other times you find the collective position weak and ineffectual. Will you speak out? Related questions are: Which battles will you fight to the end, and where will you give in? And what will be the personal cost of taking independent paths based on strong convictions? Govender for the most part solved/managed these tensions through a life that kept the focus on adding value to important political processes. In the latter period as covered in the book, however, she answered it through her withdrawal as an MP and (it would seem) from an active role in party politics. At all stages, there were costs and pressures.

Govender – as she tried to fulfil her parliamentary role - clashed with her party on the arms deal and its approach to HIV/Aids. She also voices a more general gripe: that the democratic government has, in her view, insufficiently prioritised fighting poverty and mistakenly adopted the GEAR macroeconomic policy.

Her experience in the party echoes that of Deputy Minister of Health Madlala-Routledge in Cabinet, where the latter faced huge pressures as a result of expressing herself more clearly and openly than her colleagues on issues such as the right to decent hospital services and the importance of effective rollout of ARVs for people living with Aids. Parties strive to maintain “the line” and are likely to push back when one in their ranks goes against an agreed or officially sanctioned way of handling an issue. This makes striking out alone (if you are unable to change the party’s view) risky and career-limiting. This is the stuff of all parties. For the Govenders and Maldlala-Routledges of the world, there are many factors to weigh up before taking a stand than may offend certain senior Party figures, but it seems the enormity of a national issue is what finally propels such persons to speak out.

Love and Courage, furthermore, gives us an insider’s perspective of the manoeuvring that takes place around policy making. Decisions are based on information, but data and opinion (especially the views of the most influential and powerful) get intermingled until sometimes it is difficult to know which is which. There are party hacks who desire – due to certain agendas at play - a particular end and who make no pretence of engaging with relevant information. Thankfully such “hack” behaviour co-exists with many more instances of sound decisionmaking.

The background role of experts, also with interests and agendas, is woven through all of this.
In many of her roles, and in the light of the gender-related portfolios she often occupied, it can be said that Govender wielded influence rather than power. In some battles her influence won the day, while in others – especially in head-on clashes over direction, strategy and policy choices – formal power trumped influence. This book gives a rare view of life behind the scenes in politics.

On reading this book, her adversaries may be angered - and will probably find in its pages confirmation of their view that she does not meet the requirements of a good and reliable party person. But other people will find in Love and Courage evidence that Govender is a woman of integrity who contributed in distinctive ways to the construction of the new South Africa.

Finding the "fit" between Biko's ideas and the Tambo path to freedom

2007-09-19T10:15:00.000Z

The core message of Black Consciousness may now seem to be simple and straightforward, but in the 70s, it was groundbreaking. In a time of general acquiescence within oppressed communities following the wave of state repression of the 60’s, BC was subversive, radical and life-giving.

If the black experience under apartheid was a powder keg, for the professionals and intellectuals BC constituted the striking of the match. The result was Black anger (expressed as passive resistance) and the assertion of “black power”. For the working class and the wider community, it was less directly efficacious. But these sectors were indirectly impacted as black consciousness activists began working to establish trade unions and community projects.

Black Consciousness propagated that:
- Ideas per se were a powerful force. A primary emphasis was placed on changing thinking and outlook, including perceptions of themselves, among black people
- Black pride resting on black traditions and notable historical achievements ought to be a key starting point. Black writing, black music and black achievement in various fields in Africa and the Diaspora should be celebrated.
- Black people should unite and reject ethnic divisions as an imposition of apartheid. Black solidarity should also overshadow the difference between African, Indian and Coloured.
- Blacks should reject the term “non-white”; instead of using white as the reference point, they should embrace a positive identification with the term black.
- In the theological sphere, black theology should be advanced; in this connection, reference would be made to a Christ that more likely was a swarthy Easterner than a blue eyed European and who was Black also in the sense that he sided with the poor and downtrodden.
- Whites should have no place in the struggle. This meant that black people should liberate themselves, as captured in Steve Biko’s phrase “Black man (sic), you are on your own”. Whites who wanted to work for justice should work in their own communities.

There were many “fights” or clashes, particularly in the eighties (when rival resistance groups strove for dominance and movements appeared to be vying to “own” the masses and the struggle); but these battles obscure a fundamental complementarity between Black Consciousness and an ANC approach to the struggle.

The ANC, focusing on national liberation, organized the masses around the concept of an inclusive national liberation as expressed in the rights enunciated in United Nations declarations and charters. Inherent in the ANC’s broad mass-based approach was the notion that ideas could not be the starting point in mobilization; ideas changed – and change happens - when material conditions and balance of forces are shifted or through a focusing on the material interests of target groups. Given how much the later Oliver Tambo, former ANC President, has written on this approach, I dub it the Tambo path to freedom.

There are distinct differences in approach. I choose, however, to see these differences [depicted in the table below] not as antagonistic or mutually exclusive: I see the two approaches as conceptual and strategic ingredients that combine, intermingle and work in complementary ways in history and contemporary reality (click on the box below for a clearer view):

Many of us easily combined the two approaches in our lives. Some who had been in the BC movement crossed over to join the ANC-aligned liberation forces in the height of engagement with the apartheid state, as the ANC regained ascendance in on-the-ground struggle. People like Mosioua Lekota, Ahmed Bawa, Ishmael Moss and others continued to espouse the core philosophy of BC; and sought to play a role in minimising tension and conflict between the rival political forces. A good number of my peers defined themselves as both black conscious and “progressive”.

My first real engagement with politics and political ideas happened through coming into contact with black consciousness. This occurred indirectly: my older brother and a few friends in Pietermaritzburg had some links with prominent SASO activist Henry Isaacs, who at the time was banned and under house arrest. I imbibed the philosophy through overhearing their animated discussions that followed their visits to him. I later heard a form of it disseminated by Norman Middleton at Labour Party meetings in the local community hall.

However, by the time I arrived at UWC in 1977, BC appeared to be on the wane (of course, the vicious state crackdown on BC organization has also played a part). The leading activists, some with roots in black consciousness, were already beginning to organise through educational material and discussion groups on an ANC and Marxist platform. Students listened to the ANC’s Radio Freedom on crackling transistor radios behind locked hostel doors.
Looking ahead, it is clear that the new South Africa needs to honour the late Black Consciousness leader

Steve Biko (who was killed in detention in 1977). And when it does so, it should remember him less in terms of his death than in relation to the life he lived, the power of his ideas and the continuing relevance of Black Consciousness as an antidote to the dominance & widespread internalization of racist thinking in our society.

I have no fixed ideas about how Steve Biko should or could be honoured and black consciousness acknowledged. But we should take into account that in heritage there is a move away from monuments that are “frozen in time” and static. The emphasis should be on representations that are interactive and that include reflection and discussion of the contemporary role of Black consciousness.

Clearly, Steve Biko’s name will be remembered through the name change processes, and indications are that we could be driving down Steve Biko Road or Avenue before long. But we need to go beyond this. Thus, for example, planners in relevant government agencies could consider creating a place for thinking and remembrance in Soweto, near the Hector Peterson museum and the famous Vilikazi Street. Here the link can be drawn between BC and the uprisings that began in June 16. Another possibility is to locate a “living museum” next to the District Six Museum or near the Bat Centre in Durban; in such a facility, art, text, film and interactive material can be used, in addition, to discuss racial oppression over time in Africa and the Diaspora, together with ideas and leadership in response to such oppression.

Share your views through leaving a comment.

Time to make changes so SABC serves democracy better

2007-09-17T01:49:00.000Z

The row over the the nomination of a new SABC Board - with claims that the list of nominees was determined at the ANC Head Office and that ANC MPs were cajoled into a rubber stamping role - raises a number of interesting points.

1. This nominations row come in the wake of complaints by ANC leadership about the role of the media, with the print media being accused of bias in its content, editorial choices and quality in news and commentary. These complaints are as yet untested, but have been getting ever louder. This is referred to in my piece entitled Discussion of media quality needed, not more regulation (7 Sept 2007). As I note in that blog entry, there are many unresolved issues about the media's role in a transforming South Africa. A major problem is the lack of a process to thrash out the issues and find a way forward. In this vacuum, calls for regulation among authoritarians in the ANC for state action to constrain the media are gaining a certain prominence.

2. We are witnessing a great deal of desperate maneuvering by different ruling party and other activist groups that are working to get their person elected President of the ANC. There are two main protagonists - the camp agitating for Jacob Zuma to ascend to the presidency and Thabo Mbeki's support group which is bent a different leader become’s the country's next president. But there are other forces and subgroups, with some of the covert alliances lodged in COSATU and the South African Communist Party. The media, or at least sections of it, has become a player in the game in that some protagonists use the media as a platform for discrediting certain opponents.

4. The mainstream media and the ruling ANC have a love-hate relationship. Most influential newspapers believe corruption is one of South Africa's biggest problems, and some like nothing better than to run a weekly expose fingering a top ANC leader involved in some unsavoury business. Of course, the basic concern about corruption is good and needed. Yet, with many media entities, corruption stories are seldom sustained and a focus on institutional issues of corruption is generally neglected. This means that there is a dearth of media campaigns to force government agencies to change practices which contradict policy, facilitate corruption or cause unnecessary hardship to citizens.

The ANC is riled by the abundance of corruption stories that target top individual, and it charges that constant images of the black male involved in corruption may reinforce racist perceptions that prevail in large parts of society. Unfortunately the ANC leadership is also in an loving embrace with the media. The ruling ANC uses the print media as a key source of information and a vehicle to reach the public. In addition, during periods of controversy and conflict within the ANC, insiders attack opponents through carefully placed “leaks" to the media. In this regard, the media is mobilised to attack individuals and to further factional agendas.

3. Compared to the role of other media, the SABC has decided to strike out on its own path. It has done so by taking conscious newsroom decisions to cover certain political stories differently and some major stories not at all. This recently culminated in a letter to the national editors’ forum, Sanef, in which the SABC accused other media of selling out on democracy and transformation for "thirty pieces of silver". Essentially, the official SABC stance is that coverage of political stories in the major news media (especially newspapers) is flawed. It claims that these entities are too busy pursuing profit to care about the damage done through sensationalism and scandal-mongering or influenced by a conservative political outlook that makes them unpatriotic and disrespectful of government leaders. The SABC is concerned about the "dignity and privacy" of government ministers and is highly annoyed that Sanef refuses to take the same view.

4. The row around the selection of the SABC board shows how multifaceted the problems in our media are. Organisations across a wide spectrum have raised a red flag over the selection process (and the way in which ANC headquarters allegedly intervened to influence the list, even against the wishes of ANC parliamentarians). Various political parties as well as the ANC's alliance partner, COSATU, have objected to the process ad well as to the final the list that pushed through. There are calls for President Thabo Mbeki to reject the names and to refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration. The controversy around the selection of its Board undermines the SABC's critique of mainstream media. This is not entirely fair since the debacle is less about what the broadcaster is doing and more about how powerful politicians are intervening to maintain an influence on it.
The row presents us with a good opportunity to review various aspects of the SABC with the aim of strengthening its role in democracy. Now is a good time to refine checks and balances to ensure that the broadcaster advances the values in the Constitution and serves the public in best way possible.

I suggest that a commission or an inquiry (probably instituted by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa) be launched into the role and mandate of the SABC. An inquiry should be consultative and create space for organised interest groups as well as communities across the country to give input. Such a review process ought to probe and advise on the balance between various functions and imperatives related to the SABC's role, such as:
- providing information
- critique of public officials and institutions (holding public representatives and officials accountable)
- critique of private sector practices (including consumer issues and good governance practices)
- providing entertainment
- supporting cultural development
- uniting South Africans
- generating income.

Such an inquiry should lead to a set of findings and recommendations that are an advisory in nature. I believe the SABC will be strengthened through such a process. It can draw on such findings to substantiate certain positions. Alternately, if it chooses to, it can make clear choices to ignore certain recommendations. Of course, it would need to fully substantiate its policy position and take any possible flak that would come its way.

I believe that a public consultation process around the role of broadcaster would also be good for the broader debate about the role of the media. Issues, perspectives and broadly agreed recommendations would impact on the ongoing debate about the role of media in the transformation.

In the meantime, here are some of my views on the role of the SABC.

The SABC should play a different role to other media. For one, because the SABC is not a fully commercial animal, it can undertake functions and roles that the mainstream commercial media cannot do justice to. The public broadcaster has the latitude, for example, to do better in terms of use and promotion of language diversity, increased local content and educational programmes. It can also do a better job covering development stories, which often do not meet the standard or dominant criteria for newsworthiness (e.g. controversy, conflict or scandal). However, such a distinctive role should be the subject of open consultation and continuous review by stakeholders and by the relevant Parliamentary subcommittee.

But while we should use the public broadcaster to address gaps in media provision, it should continue to provide news and commentary that is fair-minded, reflective and encourages open debate. To be fair minded means to reflect a broad range of views and - in the case of the SABC - the views of people and organisations on the ground. Coverage of political and socio-economic issues in the South African electronic media is dominated by two categories: leading politicians, Ministers and government spokesperson on the one hand, and a handful of political commentators on the other. There is immense scope for including a wider range of voices in the news and current affairs.

Discussion of media quality needed, not further regulation

2007-09-07T10:50:00.000Z

It is very difficult to properly debate the media in South Africa because we use the media itself as a platform. Who we are and what we say is already mediated by the media, and thus our discussions may already be defined by certain parameters.

But it is precisely why discussion of the media’s role is vitally important. Those of us who use print media extensively constitute a rather small group – a group which includes key opinion makers, decisionmakers and movers and shakers in institutions. But the discourses in the print media are intrinsically linked to the electronic news media. In terms of analysis and intellectual framing, the print media constitutes, as it were, the first economy while the electronic media forms the second economy. In terms of cultural influence, however, (and potential for social dialogue with all South Africans) the electronic media is by far the more powerful force.

There are other reasons why it is tricky reviewing and reflecting critically on the role of media.

As a democrat, I am wary of inciting interference with something that works – albeit with room for improvement; the concern is that - because we aren’t sure about what needs improving and how to set about making improvements – we could end up causing more damage to this important institution. It’s like the lay mechanic who pulls apart an engine, hoping to soup it up, but ends up with just a disastrous pile of engine parts on the floor.

In addition, some voices/interests in the media can be ultra sensitive to criticism. A critical comment is branded as an attack on freedom of speech, just like critical discussion of Zionism often leads to allegations of anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, fools rush in …

The media is doing a great deal of good work. Like many institutions in civil society, it was not fully prepared for life (and role-shift) beyond democracy. It had not thoroughly interrogated, before 1994, what it would mean to be the media in a transitional society and in a fragile democracy.

The media suddenly found itself having to help usher in and bed down the new democracy. Squarely in the deep end, it had to provide relevant information for voters, monitor electoral processes, introduce exiled leaders to the public, try to build bridges between alienated communities, comment on processes to deal with the past, disseminate the new Constitution’s core principals, track alliances within and between parties, be a watchdog without promoting stereotypes about black rule, hold leaders accountable and - most difficult of all - tell the development story. It had the gargantuan task of managing the ambiguity of holding leadership accountable while recognizing that this new leadership had done infinitely more to address the needs of the black majority than any government before. There are gaps, but a great deal of good work has been done.

The question is how to improve the media. Rather than stagnate and rest on laurels, the question is how to move to a new level of performance. Forget for a moment the bitter complaints by certain powerful politicians and the ruling ANC about the media; impelling us to make improvements are (a) the information needs of the people and (b) the challenge of building a collective belonging and shared goals among the widest group of South Africans.

The media needs to be prepared to undertake a deeper reflection. It needs to be prepared to navigate itself through a second loop of learning. The first level of learning is how to do better (more accuracy, retain journalistic experience longer through better pay, channels for complaint-handling, etc.) within accepted notions, the conventional and long-held traditions. A second level of rigorous reflection would go back to a review of the paradigm itself, to guiding values and the core mission of media work. Here the basic framing ideas may be adjusted, but may also be confirmed.

These days there is, frighteningly so, much talk of media regulation; (I understand the ANC has a policy proposal in this regard for discussion at its national conference later this year). It is said that being the fourth estate, the media needs checks and balances comparable to regulation governing the other 3 key spheres of democracy. Then there is the usual complaint that, in newspapers, major front page errors are followed by a barely visible retraction on a more obscure inside page. It is further argued that current self-regulation, such as the Press Ombudsman facility, is insufficient and that defamation payouts from the courts have generally been low.

But regulation would be the completely wrong way to go. Apart from the dangers of doing damage, and constricting the democratic oxygen in society, quality in the media cannot be brought about by regulation. By and large, the starting point for those supporting tougher regulation is either the need to protect the dignity and privacy of public figures or has to do with specific grievances among key politicians about coverage of their portfolios. In my book, a much broader perspective is required – including society’s needs, how to deepen our democracy and nationbulding. Also, better newspapers and better electronic news (including better quality and more depth) cannot be regulated into being.

A social dialogue process on the media and its role would need to examine:

a. Depth and quality in the media
For those who argue that quality is in place, this would represent an opportunity to confirm that. For others, identifying gaps and barriers to excellence would be important in strengthening the role of media in promoting democracy.

b. Diversity to meet the needs of the population and differentiation
A diverse mass media that comprehensively meets the information, awareness and entertainment needs of all South African is needed. Here we need to ask: what are the gaps and silences, and what can be done about these? At the same time, there must be an appreciation of the fact that a newspaper or a station needs to create a particular profile and standpoint. In some ways, it would be preferable if media vehicles were more open about their particular agenda and positioning; we could then read their editorials and their story choices in context.

c. Certain culture issues
This is a specific reference to forms of address in the media. How – given a fractious society - should, for example, the President be addressed. President Thabo Mbeki won the last elections by a sweeping majority and now occupies highest office as head of the country. That requires some acknowledgement and respect. In SA, we won’t accept groveling terms such as His Excellency to refer to Cabinet Ministers, but many of us also squirm when columnists refer to the President Mbeki simply as “Thabo”. For sure, the gloves do come off when top media voices clash with politicians; but surely it is possible to be incisive, strident and even devastating in criticism by focusing on content and without being rude or boorish.

d. How development is covered
The commercial media relies on an oppositional approach, since conflict and contestation works best for selling newspapers and drawing listeners. But mass media also has a service to perform (each media outlet must, of course, decide to what extent it does so), and communication of development information should be one of the benefits of a good media system. The media in Mzansi does well in terms of broad coverage of education - of innovations, changes and new initiatives. But many other developmental topics, e.g. housing, water, social grants, etc. are usually covered only in relation to "scandals". NGOs and community organisations constantly complain about the dearth in thorough coverage and critical analysis of development - of policy implementation, choice of instruments, policy outcomes and impacts on communities. It needs to be asked: despite the bottom-line pressures on the commercial media, what improvements in coverage are possible so that a free media contributes to better development planning, decisionmaking and implementation?

I now turn to suggestions for the way forward. One of the problems is that debate on the role of the media is often confined to/dominated by media practitioners and editors on the one side and aggrieved politicians on the other. This is far too limiting – in any case suspicions on either side about vested interests and concealed agendas mean these two sides never really dialogue. In effect, the discussion is often frozen. We need to bring the third part of the triangle into the picture – us, the public, the community and the consumers of the news media. What is needed instead is a social dialogue between the public and the media.

I propose the following:

1. There should be a major commission into the quality and depth of the mass media in South Africa. Such a commission should include leaders and practitioners in the media locally, some academics as well as experts from other countries. It should issue a “Depth and Quality” report, bearing in mind the needs of a transitional society, and draw conclusions that can guide broader engagement and dialogue.

2. Newspapers and stations should have a regular dialogue with their constituencies. For example, an Eastern Cape newspaper could hold an annual “imbizo” with people representing its constituency, including local church leaders, local trade unionists, NGOs and professionals working at community level. This would allow for a vibrant and edifying exchange on the role of media, and may provide interesting inputs into discussions about quality and effectiveness.

3. Forums and conferences for editors and journalists should include input from thinkers and analysts outside the media. It seems to me that, on the media’s role, there is a great deal of consensus (the latest outburst by the SABC aside) prevailing in the liberal/mainstream media. There seems to be a general sense of comfort that all is going well, while conceding that some tweaking and minor improvements are needed such as more training and measures to retain experienced journalists as well as better strategic responses to opportunities presented by technology and new media. The discussions at these conferences could be enriched if they were addressed by people, not necessarily politicians, who - while embracinng media freedom - could be more heretical and provocative about the role media media can play in consolidating a new democratic society.

Protests reflect need for community organising skills

2007-09-05T15:49:00.000Z

Reflecting on the many service delivery protests, the latest clashes being in Soweto, I believe that there is an urgent need for the rollout of community organizing skills.

I must begin by citing a friend and colleague, Owen Stuurman, who insists that a clear distinction be drawn between community development and community organization. Community development aspects are always needed, but community development usually implies communities organizing themselves and starting community projects.

Communities are seen (and positively so) to drive the projects themselves, but they take and use whatever they can get from donors and government. Community organization– on the other hand – points much more clearly to the need to engage with authorities, with official plans, with budgets and to take action that will ensure the delivery of vital community-wide infrastructure and services.

Community organization has a strong inward-out focus, seeking to impact on wider systems. It seeks to make those systems more enabling and supportive of development in the community. In the SA context both are needed. Communities must launch their own projects and bring other players and resources to the party. At the same time, there needs to be community organization.

Such organization improves democratic local governance and helps to bring about a proper and balanced distribution of resources that has already been approved by Parliament(s) in order to improve the lives of people.

The Department of Social Development, as part of its shift away from welfare to effective development, has over the years been placing increasing policy emphasis on community-based facilitation. They have linked this to the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and government’s Community Development Worker (CDW) programmes which are ventures that seek to provide skills to the unemployed through a kind of internship. In the EPWP, for example, the focus might be on social public works such as door to door HIV/AIDS work. The CDWs would fan out into communities, informing households about key government programmes and – using internet-linked laptops – help people in poor communities to access social grants and other services. Should these programmes not also be providing workshops on the basics of community organisation?

The social workers in government - who focus on psychosocial work (counseling services and group work with vulnerable groups) - also have the scope to include activities that enhancing community organization skills. In recent years, the Department has experimented with income-generating projects, inter alia through using UN funding. All pretty good work, trying to build self-esteem and initiatives based on group trust in communities battered by poverty. But, I would argue, there is now immense opportunity to enhance levels of empowerment through supporting communities to engage more effectively with government.

Aggrieved groups should recognize that protesting well and with impact is a skill. The answers to the following questions emerge only after planning and careful consultative work at local level. What are your demands? How deep and wide is community support for your demands? How long can you sustain your action? How will you appeal to the wider public so they side with your just demands? How will you leverage knowledge of the law, plans and budgets, etc – to advance your case?

A deeper grasp of community organization would suggest that effective protest (although from a distance it sometimes looks similar) is distinct from “running amok”, angry outbursts, spontaneous violence and wanton attacks on property. These latter forms may as easily lead nowhere, especially if you lack the capacity and support to sustain the protests through crackdowns and state action.

I know, as one community protester from the Ekurhuleni area told me recently, an outraged oppressed group finds it offensive that any individual from outside should try to prescribe how it should protest. I am aware that many things affect decisions about tactics: knowledge of tactical options, levels of anger, number of times official promises have been broken and depth of leadership experience and insight into social change processes.

And yet … as an observer, I am often left in the dark about what the specific demands are and who the specific target of the protest is. I am also puzzled why passers-by (and sometimes hawkers along the route of protests) are attacked. And given that these are anti-poverty protests (and many people may want to show solidarity), how can sympathetic individuals or groups forge any alliances with an amorphous group?

My views are that:
++ We should make full use of the channels that exist in the democracy we fought for. Don’t start breaking down the door before you have actually ascertained that it is bolted shut.

++ Once you have exhausted options (and there is no positive change in the lives of your constituency despite your petitioning and appeals over a long period of time), you will logically move to more radical protests. In the end, your focus is on making sure you meet some or all of your objectives – not necessarily on whether you bring discomfort to officials or not. Although used more sparingly in a functioning democracy, no-one can take away your right to toyi-toyi.

In the literature on advocacy (changing dominant views and shifting policies), the types of possible actions to demand change form a continuum. Actions can range from passive resistance (doing it on your own), co-operation/collaboration (working with government) through to open and forceful opposition. In our legitimate and democratic government, the focus is surely not on planning to overthrow the government, so any calls to violent action must be rejected as destructive and ill-advised.

All in all, there appears to be a widespread and dire need for enhancement of old-fashioned community organizing skills. Such enhancement will seek out continuities with past struggles and will draw out experience and knowledge, possibly neglected in the heat of the moment, that resides within poor communities.

With deeper understanding of community organization history, processes and case studies, protestors are likely to do better at forcing officials to face up to rather than avoid the real issues. Demonstrators can also minimize clashes with police and are more likely to garner wider public support and a positive overall outcome.

Many officials may like the idea of respectable leaders of community groups sitting at the table rather than toyi-toying in the streets. They may imagine that dealing with organized communities means tame groups sitting in paneled boardrooms sipping tea and listening to presentations and speeches by officials. But such a view would be cynical and shortsighted. Embracing community organization as a feature of local governance will require a change on the part of officialdom as well.

On their part, officials need more generally to understand that active citizenship is part of a process of realizing a rights-based society. They need to accept that “Batho Pele” (the public service slogan, People First) can only be effectively implemented if communities are active in following up on the rights formally accorded to them by law.

Officials should have their doors open to engage with organized communities and leaders of campaigns on burning socio-economic issues. During meetings, they ought to listen, clarifying needs and getting a clear understanding of community perceptions of what changes are required. Officials need to be committed to reporting back within agreed time lines. Mutual respect, rather than disdain and arrogance, should be the preferred style. Officials should impart facts, and openly discuss their constraints and challenges. Initially angry groups dismiss official reasons and explanations, but even the poorest communities prefer to hear the truth rather than empty promises.

What are your views? Kindly leave a comment.

Despite confusion in the political world, a time to build hope

2007-09-03T00:47:00.000Z

With the arrival of spring 2007, is it not time to encourage and engender a more positive mood among South Africans?

Although calendar demarcation lines such as a "new year" (and decades for that matter) are artificial markers of time, Spring is much more real, grounded in meteorological reality. Maybe we can use nature’s gear change as leverage to spur on the shift in mood as we enter the last four months of the year.

Despite the problems and challenges of developing countries - and ours in particular - how does one contemplate the future without a bucket or two of optimism? Without hope, we remain trapped within the past, and within the limits it imposes. Our thinking becomes narrow and we run low in generosity and openness to others.

Being optimistic is a choice. We can opt to look at things differently. Indeed, we can choose the lens we want; we can decide what must be in the frame. This is applicable as much at a personal level as at the broader level of social awareness.

Of course, any talk of a so-called positive mind, conjures up the image of the motivational speaker, which in turn provokes sniggers among the skeptics. Motivational speakers are renowned for framing their positive outlook in terms of the maxim: you can be whatever you want to be. Of course, you need to make sense of such a sweeping claim: what it really means is that - by shifting one’s perspective and refocusing your energies - you can always do better. Or you might take it to mean that – as I heard one motivational speaker confess – you can be what you want to be, provided that you can build a credible bridge to that goal.

Hope is not just pie in the sky; it is a life-giving force. In her edited book, Hope: new philosophies for change, Sydney-based Mary Zournazi ropes in several leading philosophers to explore the “politics of hope” and “revolutionary hope”. For her, hope is not just “the desire for things to come” but “the drive or energy that embeds us in the world” and makes us a vibrant part of what she calls the ecology of life.

In the current context, where politics momentarily seems rudderless and many politicians appear estranged from their constituencies, being hopeful and optimistic means asking: how can we as a country emerge from this stronger and more aligned with each other in terms of broad national goals. What stance can we take and what actions, responses and comments can we make that would tilt us in such a direction?

The country’s brand statement “Alive With Possibilities” can be instructive here. The core argument in the brand statement is that because of who we are (personality), what we have (attributes) and what we do (capabilities), we offer the world (anyone who engages with use) unique new possibilities. This line of thinking does not entail that we close our eyes to problems, challenges and missed opportunities; what it means is that if we believe in the country and can see what is possible (based on how we overcame the odds in the past), we will work harder to make this democracy better and more effective.

We have many things going for us. Sustained economic growth that raises the possibilities of improving the lot of the many who live in poverty and deprivation. South Africa’s robust constitution that is backed up by key institutions. We are gearing up for a Soccer World Cup that will give visitors a unique experience: the best of soccer coupled with easy-to-reach beaches, game parks, cultural tourism and some of the most scenic spots in the world. We also boast a diverse people with a rich cultural life.

Of course, the skeptics and the cynics who seemingly include large numbers of South Africans, will look at these aspects and argue that they are not enough. Yet at the same time, researchers tell us that many more South Africans feel good about being citizens of Mzansi. According to a report (29 Aug 2007) on the research results of the World Values Survey, 96% of South Africans are proud of their country. And while 5 years ago, 83% of white people viewed themselves as proud of SA, that figure has since jumped to 95%.

The lead researcher, Dr Hennie Kotze, ascribes the good results to “positive socio-economic trends”. The survey also found that, although a substantial number are concerned about crime, South Africans' confidence in state institutions had increased by 11%.

So despite the glum mood on the surface, beneath it all, South Africans clearly recall where they have come from and their basic long term perspective remains good. Let us build on these robust foundations.

James adds to thinking on settlers and natives

2007-08-27T00:25:00.000Z

Dr Wilmot James adds an interesting bit to the ongoing discussion about which group(s) can lay indisputable claim to being South African. It arguably opens up new ways of looking at the issue of settlers and natives, and may lead to new arguments and contestation about indigeneity.

James argues that – as a newspaper headline put it – “we are all settlers”. He states that the modern human being in South Africa came here from East Africa. This occurred about 110000 years ago.

“No one group can lay claim to South Africa. Everyone is a settler, and we will show how people came here in waves of migration,” says James. “We do not understand our history well enough and the truth has been modified in many stories.”

This news will cheer many people up; they will see this as further support for the Freedom Charter notion that SA belongs to all who live/settle/survive in it and that the country will thrive only if shared. Such persons will take it as further encouragement to work for the non-racial and anti-racist, inclusive and democratic society envisioned in our Constitution.

Others, however, will be very cautious as they read James’ findings. Already, in some views expressed, people particularly resent the term “we are all settlers” and the leveling it suggests. These people rail against what they might term an ingenious attempt to gloss over the terrible impacts of the colonial period. In this category will also be groups such as Bruin Development that are campaigning for a better status for so-called Coloured people. They will latch on to James’ remark that the “Khoi/San moved from East Africa and, up until 2 000 years ago, people living in southern Africa were brown.”

Somehow, we must try to live with both truths and perspectives – one that centres on inclusiveness and the other which emphasises restoration and restitution. As I have suggested before, if you want to live on the Southern tip, a capacity to live with ambiguity is a must.

We need to accept the truth that we are all human beings and spring from the same source; at the same time, we must deal with memory, history and past experience. Put another way, we cannot solve the problems of the past in a manner that creates new prejudices; at the same time, we should not myopically try to avoid rectifying past injustices just because we want to be nice or avoid constructive conflict.

This research information drives one to the conclusion that it is possibly incorrect, sloppy and perhaps expedient to use the term "native" in an essentialist way. It is much better to use it in a political sense, and, when doing so, to explain what is meant and who is included in the category.

A subtopic to all of this is the science that underlies all of this: James draws his conclusions from DNA evidence and his studies into human genetics.

The “origins” of human-beings always fascinates, as does the genetics involved, but it all becomes sullied, ridiculous and facile (and sometimes even evil) when various forces try to apply this knowledge to issues such as culture and identity. I say: study our origins, teach it to wide-eyed children by all means, but keep the scientific wonder of our genesis far as possible away from contestation about culture, race, ethnicity and social organization in the world today. Identity, it can be argued, is influenced by culture and by power relations that interfere with selfhood and distort discussion around definitions.

Identity and culture are social constructs; they are also subject to change/ adaptation/ evolution through development processes, policymaking and conscious decisions and actions. In any case, cultures adapt in the light of changes (social, economic, technological, etc.) in the world around them. Let’s use the diversity and richness that lie in our differences as human beings to build the society we want here in Mzansi and in the wider world.

Blog readers are invited to share their "take" on the issues involved and on my views by adding a comment.

Mantogate: the unraveling of national focus and direction

2007-08-26T04:42:00.000Z

The current political turmoil, centred on the political leadership of the Health Department, is leading to a major unraveling of the sense of focus and direction in Mzansi.

The current phase of instability was triggered when the President fired one leader (with controversial timing and a peculiar way of handling reactions) and insisted on holding fast to another. Large numbers of people are getting involved in what is a burning hot controversy, lining up to support or denounce the leadership of the President. Colourful language, scathing cartoons and funny but insensitive jokes are the order of the day.

There is an unraveling of, shall we say, a spirit of broad consensus, of working towards the same goal as well as, in national terms, dilution of the sense of direction, pace and due regard for leadership. The project of national advancement is of course much more deeply rooted in policies, institutions and aspirations. The fundamentals are in place. But the erosion is nonetheless worrying. It has a tiring effect, drains hope and among some causes depression.

As particular interests enter the debate, they add to the shrillness. Unthinking interventions can entrench the modes of attack and defend. Many a contribution does not help to draw lessons or lead to institutional and policy changes that will ensure the same mistakes are not made again. In only few instances does the rhetoric progress from the particular case (and the specific personalities) to elaborate on how we might build from here – what practices, behaviours and principles need to be restored and re-emphasized.

Sure, many don’t like the Minister and some of us doubt she adds value any more – but what are the underlying values that we want to emphasise, popularize and consolidate? Let’s keep spelling that out and perhaps we can still draw something edifying from the sordidness and noise.

At the same time, we should perhaps acknowledge that a good spin-off of the saga is that many ordinary people are yakking about the health of the nation. People care! There is a sharp decline in passivity and a widespread spike of interest regarding the behaviour and performance of politicians. It is positive that many ordinary people airing their views are adamant that their motivation is that they desire something better - for example, a better quality of politics, media and practice around public debate for South Africa.

The current squabble links to the ANC succession debate. Who can deny that either the causes or effects of the saga (and actions of key roleplayers in it) have a bearing on the succession battle? Madlala-Routledge – the fired former Deputy Health Minister – indicated as much when she made reference to the succession struggle within the ANC at her much-cited press conference on 10 August.

Clearly, while the Mantogate saga makes its specific contribution, the succession battle and its protagonists take the prize for having a debilitating effect on key national processes and on processes of policy development and review. In fact, in quite a few rows, conflicts and controversies affecting the tripartite alliance, the rot (and allegations of rot) starts there (in the way the succession battle is being waged).

Not so long ago - around mid-year and just before - the ANC was emphasizing the concept of a developmental state that could play a leadership role through key interventions in society. Of course, the state cannot adequately lead change if those in power are mired in conflict, and others outside stir the pot in specific ways. As I have argued before, the current climate means that agreement on important projects and initiatives are stalled or slowed down. Of course, many initiatives already approved and budgeted for are continuing – such as preparations for the 2010 Soccer World Cup. It is new initiatives, as well as precarious projects and campaigns that require a broad unity of purpose among all stakeholders such as the HIV and Aids strategy, that may run aground as a result of divisions in government decision-making structures.

---------------------------------------------------------
In the rest of this blog post, and in perhaps a less serious vein, I share comments I have heard on the Mantogate affair:

A young women, too young to have been involved in anti-apartheid campaigns, said to me: “You guys were so united during the struggle. Now that you have power there are so many vicious fights.”

A progressive theologian and now a businessman, during a conversation on Mantogate, referred to his recent visit to Zimbabwe where he noted the shocking extent of collapse: “Their problem was that they loved their leaders too much. We should not go down the same path.’ I argued that our democracy is stronger and our political culture of better quality but the reverend, who is very much an ANC man, cautioned that many people are willing to rally blindly around leaders.

In a casual discussion at lunch with a group one day, I noted that, if it were true that the Minister drank a glass or two beyond the limit, surely it could in some respects be understood: “If I opened the newspaper every day and saw myself lampooned and lambasted, I would say: pour me another one.” I reminded the group how a foreign traveler on SAA refused to sit next the Minister, causing the Minister to flare up and starting yet another row. “That must be depressing,” I said, only half-seriously and desperately trying to find another angle to what was becoming a repetition of just a few similar viewpoints on the issue. The group of women I was speaking to were totally unmoved: “She brought it on herself,” they said.

A consultant working on behaviour-change programmes in the HIV/Aids area told me: “There is a human element, certainly. But I think it is good she (Tshabalala-Msimang) is getting roasted by the Sunday Times. Think of the many lives lost as a result of her approach to HIV and Aids. She deserves what she is getting.”

An ANC representative, Hope Papo, was explaining on radio why we should ignore allegations of theft. “Many things happened in exile,” he said, and suggested that Tshabalala-Msimang could easily have been set up. (If you have any more information on this, Hope, please elaborate!)

A friend SMSd me to say: “Enough already,” adding that the Sunday Times "drunk and a thief" revelations/allegations about the Health Minister were “below the belt”. This was a sequel to an earlier message which noted the following “lekker consequence” to the Madlala-Routledge controversy: “the nation is awake and paying attention again”.

Tshabalala-Msimang: is this saga dragging us all down or is it good for the country?

2007-08-24T11:40:00.000Z

There is great deal of noise, and much division around the Tshabala-Misimang saga. In this blog post, I decline the chance to add to the shrillness, stridency (there's enough going around) and name calling and instead set out 18 questions that may help clarify the issues and your own response to them?

- Is this saga dragging us all down or is it good for the country?
- Is it true that - as one friend said to me - that recent developments around Health Minister Tshabala-Msimang and former Deputy Health Minister Madlala-Routledge are good because many more people (who are otherwise passive and quiet) are discussing and debating political issues?
- Among those who think the Health Minister has done are good job, where are the areas of notable achievement and how does this stack up with areas of poor performance, ineffectiveness and mediocrity?
- Can the Minister actually do her work, especially regarding the HIV/Aids pandemic, without widespread societal confidence in her?
- A Cabinet Minister does not have to be a fervent populist, but they need to be responsive; is the Health Minister responsive to key constituencies?
- If the President is wedded to keep the Health Minister as his Cabinet team, has he considered moving her to another portfolio where broader stakeholder enrolment is not as critical?
- Has government investigated why highly-regarded senior managers in the Health Department (two Director-Generals) quit their jobs in recent years?
- Was the timing right/immaterial/poor for the President to fire Madlala-Routledge as Deputy Minister of Health?
- Did the Presidency anticipate the extent and types of reaction to this decision?
- Did the presidency anticipate that the dismissal decision could spark negative reactions in the international media (e.g. the Independent in the UK) and reignite questions about the President's stand on HIV and Aids?
- Did the Presidency anticipate that a leading Sunday newspaper would want revenge – "an eye for an eye?" – and would pull out all stops to try to bring about the sacking of the Minister of Health?
- Does the way the government is handling Public Relations and implementing crisis management on this issue fall short of government’s usual competence in media handling?
- What is making the Sunday Times so strident, angry and vehement? And why does it garner support from several/many quarters, even if it is venturing into distasteful reporting and a reporting style that is unusual in South African tradition?
- Do you agree with Sunday Times's probe into the Minister's private life? What do you think the wider media impact will be? Assuming the end is more effective implementation of stated health policy, does the end justify the means?
- Is this issue – surrounding the Health Ministry’s political leadership – not an unnecessary distraction for officials such as Themba Maseka who are charged with building broad support for government’s Asgisa agenda?
- Has this issue unleashed forces and reactions that are feeding into a broader breakdown of consensus between government and key constituencies?
- Is it worth it for government and the President to cling to Tshabala Msimang as Health Minister, given the impact it is having?
- Is it true that many people here and abroad think Minister Tshabala-Msimang’s behavior and performance reflect on President Mbeki, and if so, why should the President, who has scored many remarkable achievements, have his legacy sullied by what looks like an overall poor performer? Why should he let her be a liability to him and adversely affect his leadership standing?
- Earlier this year, the President considered replacing Manto Tshabala-Msimang in the health portfolio with Transport Minister Jeff Radebe, but backed off from the idea; is the thinking and motivation behind that original proposal still valid, and can the impediments to implementation now be overcome?
- Is there a way that the President can relieve Tshabala-Msimang of her Health Minister job without it looking like a climb-down, or does this not matter?
- How can we move the focus back to key policy issues while making sure performance and conduct flaws revealed through this incident are dealt with?

As always, responses to this post are welcome ....

Afrikaans gets a boost from black ten-year old

2007-08-21T10:25:00.000Z

Beeld last week (15 Aug) covered a fascinating story about a black kid who won a national debating competition in Afrikaans. The girl, Pretoria based Thuli Manunga (10), although her mother tongue is Xhosa, speaks Afrikaans like the best of them and is the winner of the junior division of the ATKV debating contest.

This story is emblematic of how the new South Africa is liberating Afrikaans.

Sure, I know there are those who perpetuate the myth that Afrikaans is under threat in Mzansi. They write to connections and well placed people in countries such as Belgium airing dire warnings that the future of “die taal” is at risk. You can also, for example, read the writings of people like Steve Hofmeyr who seek to feverishly defend Afrikaans culture and language against various forces, including an ANC government. The truth is different: under democracy, Afrikaans can shed its old burdensome associations and face the future with new confidence.

The way to protect your language is not to retreat into the laager, but to step out and take your place, in a vital way, in South African social and cultural life.

The advent of democracy – with its built-in formula of inclusivity and synthesis rather than conquest and retribution – frees Afrikaans of its baggage. We can acknowledge that this language, embroiled in unjust historical processes, was used as a tool to bark some of the meanest and nastiest instructions. We can ruefully reflect on how Afrikaans coined the word bliksem, a reference to cruel punishment meted out in a context of skewed power relations. But we can also simultaneously put that behind us. We can say, taking the present as the vantage point, that Afrikaans is categorically not the language of the oppressor. It is a proud constituent of Mzansi’s culture; it is entrenched and constitutionally recognized as one of South Africa’s languages. Afrikaans is part of the distinctiveness that we marshall as we seek to engage and advance our interests in a fiercely competitive global context.

It is true that Afrikaans faces a challenge; it is up against the dominance of English in the business arena and in many parts of the academic world. But this is a different problem (to a claim that Afrikaans is being singled out and specifically suppressed); instead, this is a concern facing all other official languages. Afrikaans taal stryders (language activists) should unite with others to examine ways in which to promote the use of the mother tongue in education as well as multiple language usage in policy debates, in the creative arts and as many spheres of life as possible.

Afrikaners can also get some perspective by recognizing how many African black people speak Afrikaans. For millions of people in the country, Afrikaans is the only or primary language second only to their home language. Thus, for example, Matthews Posa writes poetry in Afrikaans and well known figures such as Mosiuoa Lekota, Mannie Dipico and Sandile Dikeni are at ease when engaging with others using the medium of Afrikaans. And tsotsitaal, as its name suggests, is replete with Afrikaans words. Afrikaners should also take proper cognisance of the many South Africans of mixed heritage who speak Afrikaans as a home language, and who argue that coloured black Afrikaners played a key role in the emergence of the language. Leaders in this community have always noted that, in their book, Afrikaans was as much a language of “onderdrukking” (oppression) as a language of “bevryding” (liberation).

I say: it is time to further break down the laager of official ownership of and fearfulness around Afrikaans. Stop circling the wagons! Let the Afrikaans arts festivals increase the pace of opening up to people of different cultural backgrounds and halt the possible slippage into rallying points for conservatism, exclusivity and fearmongering. Let us use these and other platforms to harvest the lessons from the development of Afrikaans so we can assist those practitioners struggling to enhance the status of other marginalized indigenous languages. Afrikaans will be part of the Mzansi landscape for a long time to come, especially if Afrikaners eschew navel-gazing in favour of reaching out to fellow South Africans in a spirit of optimism and togetherness.

And if white Afrikaners do shed their blinkers and reach out, they will find that the Thuli Manungus of the world have long joined the process of sustaining and promoting “die taal”.

Madlala-Routledge's firing will deepen political ructions

2007-08-11T08:40:00.000Z

The firing of Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge from her position as Deputy Minister of Health is causing giant waves in political circles. The full story of the motivations, specific issues and processes related to the dismissal is still emerging. Comment has come from many quarters and many more wise heads will pronounce, I'm sure, but I will still add my tuppence worth:

1. The action to dismiss is at best puzzling and at worse a cardinal error. Given the rifts and ructions in the party, President Thabo Mbeki appears to need friends; it is not a time for further disturbing a hornet’s nest. The past year and more has seen a block of opposition build up against him. If one takes the pervious ANC National General Council (held last year) as a marker, he has become something of a rallying point for a variety of sub interest groups and disaffected persons who are united only in their opposition to him, including:
- Some who feel denied their share of the BEE gravy.
- Those who feel bypassed in the appointment of provincial Premiers.
- Those more generally who have their eye on top positions - they believe they can get there if they join some kind of united mobilization for a new leadership order.
- Those bitter and angry because they feel top ANC leaders continuously undermine the Tripartite Alliance.
- Those (including communists in the ANC) who remain angry about the adoption of Gear and the austerity programmes that the country has recently emerged from.
- Supporters of Jacob Zuma who feel he was being victimized through the use of state agencies such as the Scorpions.
- Those from marginalized social groups who feel they have not yet benefited from transformation (e.g. unemployed youth, local ANC activists angry about gaps in local government delivery and ANC members who feel that demarcation decisions mean a much longer wait for delivery).

In this context, the axing of Madlala-Routledge is almost certain to add to Mbeki's problems of political management and maintaining cohesion in the party.

2. The axing may be positive in at least one sense. It would indicate that President Mbeki has broken his moratorium on firing members of Cabinet, even where they perform dismally or fall seriously short of expected leadership behaviour.

3. Madlala-Routledge is a leader to many of us. Her leadership standing is not only related to the role she played in building unity of stakeholders around a clear and strong platform on the issue of HIV/Aids prevention, treatment, care and support. It dates way back to the eighties when she was active in mass democratic movement structures and was a central figure of women’s organization in KwaZulu-Natal.

4. The official comment from the Presidency around the axing of Madlala-Routledge is that the President owes no one an explanation. I think the president’s spokesperson, Mukoni Ratshitanga, should distinguish between rulership and leadership. Rulership requires the minimum engagement and communication with subjects; under that conception of governing, a leader needs to do the bare minimum required by law. Leadership, on the other hand, entails constantly engaging and enrolling others - the public, stakeholders and interest groups - behind the leader’s thinking, what s/she stands for and the direction s/he is taking.

Cultural products are a mirror to the ebbs and flows of change

2007-08-08T06:45:00.000Z

We can learn much from culture about ourselves and our world. My potted dabbling in movies, books and plays - as opposed to more extensive exposure and enjoyment of what is available -signals considerable gaps in my continuing education.

I have not seen many movies lately, although I managed to catch titles such as Queen and Last King of Scotland. The last major South African movie I viewed was Drum, which focused on life in Johannesburg in the 60s. The place featured in the movie (Sophiatown) is like a frontier town – the rough- and readiness, a definite vibrancy, the urban-rural connections, communities in formation and the co-existence of trust and danger. The apartheid state also contributed to the edginess, what with its raids on shebeens and a variety of controls on the movement of the black population. In the end, the bulldozers won the day as the regime sought to make a white spot out of a residential area it viewed as a black spot.

Being and Afro-phile, I went to the movies anticipating the Last King of Scotland to depress me out of my skull. I expected dead bodies piled high and indeed that was so, but Forrest Whittaker gave a performance that lifted the movie. The film also gave insight into the recruitment, selection and formation of (firstly) a dud leader and a dictator. On display was also the Hollywood technique - par for the course in movies about Africa - of having (for commercial reasons) a white person in a major lead role. In Last King of Scotland, a fictional white medical doctor interprets what happened.

Turning to the theatre front, a past blog entry has referred to the play Dream of the Dog directed by Malcolm Purkey which is still running at Market Theatre. Purkey once told me that he believed the challenge in theatre was to lay down the new paths (moving forward from the rich history of protest theatre). This play sits in the transitional space between the new directions and the old forms. The play also nicely symbolizes Mzansi’s current position, located as it is in the interregnum which involves grappling with past injustice (insufficient closure on the past) while making advances towards a new and fundamentally different future.

I also recently saw Ntsako Mkhabela’s student production Sis Dolly’s Place which played at one of the small theatres at Wits University. The play could have done with a stronger story line. On the other hand, this deficiency gave the play a strongly post-modern flavour and featured some exciting juxtapositions. Sid Dollys Place skillfully conveyed the edginess of Johannesburg: the vibrancy, the seduction (always drawing newcomers, it seems) and those ragged and jagged edges. The play had no discernable lead role, but featured various main characters on an almost equal footing. There’s the procrastinating writer who is dreaming instead of actually writing, there’s a tough cookie of a shebeen owner (Sis Dolly), there’s the depressed person with a large suitcase of letters searching vainly for her husband and there’s a narrator darting/flying around the room declaring undying love for Johannesburg. With a little reshaping and fine-tuning, this play could easily be taken beyond the student scene.

On the literature front: currently on my bedside table is Zachariah Rapola’s The Beginning of Dream. This text fuses instances of magic realism with references to a local world that is all too recognizable. We see the parochial viewpoints of people whose horizons are confined: the petty jealousies, fraught and competitive interactions between women and intergenerational/ interfamily pressures coming into play. But we also see strange things happen and witness the dead engage in dialogue while maneuvering and schlentering - and trying to steer the lives of the living. Happily, "Dream" avoids contrived and the trap of trying to be too clever: Rapola is at ease as he weaves these two worlds together. His is a potent voice.

I am also rereading Oswald Mtshali’s Sounds of a Cowhide Drum and the work of Wopko Jensma’ Sing for the Execution. I am reading them - apart from my enjoyment of their craft – because I am perturbed that these artists and others who were enormously influential in the early eighties (and the preceding decade) are completely unsung in the new South Africa.

Mtshali wrote powerfully about ordinary life, but often with an ironic twist in the tale. In one of his poems, the central character sees a person collapse after being assaulted, the blood flowing “from his nostrils” into the street. The observer averts his gaze and walks on and into a church. When the self-satisfied and now-blessed observer returns from church, a neighbour asks: “Have you heard? They killed your brother?”

Jensma, for his part, marries texts with images, and his striking black and white woodcuts set off explosions of awareness that invigorate consciousnness and perception.

Proving that there is little thematic connection between the books I read, I have also started on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Of course, Harry is no hero or genius; in fact, he is all too frequently helped out of trouble by Hagrid, Dumbledore, Hermione and many guardian spirits. But he is a good soul and takes an implacable stand against the use of magic to harm muggles (us ordinary folk who don’t use magic). It seems that not only is it okay for Westerners like JK Rowling and Shakespeare to write of ghostly happenings – they are often feted for it. But stories with similar supernatural happenings penned from an African perspective are not appreciated and are often viewed as reflecting backwardness. But - what the heck! - the Harry Potter books are making the kids read, and that is an eminently good thing!

I exhort you the reader to access relevant plays, books and films as one of way of learning more about other South Africans, and perhaps about yourself.

Old Word with New Meanings?

2007-08-03T00:42:00.001Z

The term ‘native’ has re-entered the SA political debate. This entry is positive – unlike in the past when ‘native’ accompanied a long line of terms such as ‘Bantu’ and ‘Plural’ that were used as the name of the government department charged with the administration of the majority in the black population.

Firstly, the current use of the term ‘native’ is interesting. The word ‘native’ leapt into the public arena through the formation of The Native Club about a year ago.

We all know the meaning of the word as per the Webster’s or Oxford dictionary. Used in its political sense, however, the term originates from the context of the colony and colonisation. It conjures up a graphic image of the coloniser (hard, aloof and frequently patronising) and the locals (exploited in many different ways). Today “native” is often used in tandem with the term “settler”. Sometimes, however, it is deployed interchangeably as referring to the hardships and oppression that arise from the vestiges of colonialism as well as the evils of human subjugation prevalent during imperialism.

There appears to be some link to debates about who can be regarded, I suppose, as true and genuine South Africans, those with a genuine interest and a more legitimate stake in the future of the country.

I believe that when considering who is a South African, we should steer away from essentialist notions. Such notions get you into all kinds of trouble. When trying to categorise people, terms that at first seem clear, after a while – especially at the margins where categories interface – become murky and nebulous. You would be in danger of becoming entangled in problematic debates about genetics, bloodlines and eugenics.

South Africans include:
a) indigenous people, those who can trace their forbears as far back as possible and still place their footprints and fossils in Southern African soil.
b) groups/individuals that have no home in another place, no place else either geographically (or in their consciousness) where they can run to when things become too much for them in Mzanzi.
c) people or individuals who make a commitment to and identify with Mzanzi and its nestling within the region and continent; such a stand means the exercising of an option and a political commitment to Mzanzi.

These categorizations should not be the building blocks of prejudice and intolerance; rather (more positively) they should indicate the deep reservoirs of human experience, insight, perspectives and ways of living that we can draw on as we define our distinctiveness as South Africans into the future.

However, I must ask: how important is it to draw a distinction between being native and non-native as we dialogue about the future of the country and debate each other’s positions?

There is some use or merit to the term being employed in debate. For example, it seems to come into play in the quest to unmask power relations. It is a tool in discussion about how major solidarities develop and sustain themselves. Its use can lead to a deeper discussion and reflection about the motivating forces for change. In this regard, the term can be deployed to indicate persons whose vested interests stand in contrast to those of imperialists. It puts the spotlight on sets of people or organised groups seeking redress against specific cases of historical exploitation.

At another level, the term has little value. Our constitution gives citizenship rights to all South Africans and such rights (which include voting rights) imply that we can all take part in debates about the future of the country. Even the Freedom Charter, which appears to provide the philosophical underpinning for our democracy, states that Mzanzi belongs "to all who live in it".

In terms of these seminal documents, this opening up is much more than a liberal concession; they punt such an inclusive stance as a radical position that is distinct and intentional against a backdrop of historical (in South Africa) and contemporary (many parts of the world) racist exclusivity.

Although the term native has undoubted currency - and appears to be adding spark and vibrancy to political debates - those who use it should bear in mind the following issues:

* The term is weakened to the extent that it overlooks or submerges the class factor. It suggests that persons organized in terms of nationalistic solidarity fundamentally and always share common perspectives. But in today’s South Africa, as COSATU frequently points out, people who have a shared heritage, historical experiences and even common national heroes often have significantly diverging interests and priorities. In the trade union federation’s view, a huge gulf exists between the “native” capitalist mogul that has benefited from affirmative action and the native unskilled worker.

* The term does not bring to the fore gender differences in a meaningful way, nor does it adequately deal with other differences within, for example, the black community. The danger is that those who then aim to articulate the “native” position run the risk of downplaying the diversity of views, and instead put forward monolithic views that in themselves can be stereotypical.

* We should not become so caught up in the use of jargon (or “in” terms understood by a few) that we neglect to explain what we mean. If a term gets used as shorthand, or as a sociological term with specific meaning, it will be helpful if those using such a term continuously explain what the term means. In this way we would ensure wider participation in debates and ensure that discussion of real issues is not undermined by poor hearing and distorted inferences.

* Categorisations are a problem if they paint us into a corner and limit the possibility of forward movement. Once we have completed the classification of who is a native and who is not, or who is an African and who is not, what then? Where do we go from there? As someone who works in social change and transformation, I am perturbed by rigid categories that suggest no change is possible. Even the original communist thinkers that emphasized the primacy of class categorisations conceded the possibility of "class suicide". Thus, whereas in the context of a nationbuilding, terms such as "native" and "settler" help us to openly discuss the legacies of oppression and exploitation; they also lead us to a dead end if the peddlers of such terms close off possibilities of moving forward, of working together on shared priorities, and forging new solidarities based on some shared grasp of past truths and future possibilities.

What is your view as a reader on this issue? Let's widen participation in the debate.

Better to dig up memories than keep them buried, says theatre production

2007-07-25T11:33:00.000Z

How do we deal with memory and the past? Is it possible to simply bury unresolved issues and move on? And if we dig up the memories, do we get closer to the truth; and how certain can we be that we will then be able to get on with our lives?

These are questions that surface in the political realm, for sure; but they crop up just as easily in human relationships. These issues are probed in Dream of the Dog, playing at the Market Theatre, Johannesburg. The play, written by Craig Higginson, is directed by Malcolm Purkey, a leading voice in the SA theatre world, and features the acting talents of Vanessa Cooke and Mncidisi Shabangu.

Dream of the Dog is a story that is set somewhere at a farmhouse. An old couple and their domestic worker are pulling down the shutters, packing the boxes and preparing to leave the farm for good. A visitor, a former ‘garden boy’ but now “a success,” returns to the farm in search of some answers. He appears to be haunted by an appalling incident that happened many years before and in which someone had died. The visitor, provocatively named Looksmart, is here to confront the lady of the house about this. Although he does not seem entirely sure why he returned after all the years, and what he wants out of this engagement, one gets the sense that he wants to clear the air in some way.

Dream of the Dog is reminiscent of the work of Athol Fugard. It is layered in conversation that variously rises in anger, becomes tension-filled, turns reflective and subsides into a vivid stillness; and so the play leads the audience to a deeper understanding. For the characters, the layers are peeled away until all is bared; there is a movement toward the depths of pain and ultimately, from there, towards some form of awkward acceptance and a gritty calm.

The story unfolds with twists and turns. One person seeks the truth, while another knows what happened but conceals it (and his deceit) behind a curtain of amnesia. The third person, the lady of the house, has seen but neglected clues to the truth but has (until now) not wanted to countenance the possibility of what really took place. She must wrestle with herself; she engages in a dance of justification, regrets, recounting the good things she has done, and eventually faces up to the truth, as terrible as it is.

Dream of the Dog underlines how people have different perceptions of a common event. The hurt or pain a particular person experiences sharpens remembrance of certain aspects rather than others. In the same way, people’s deepest fears shape what they select to recall.

The play emphasizes the centrality of truth-telling which helps forgiveness, but which also forms part of restoration. Truth liberates. It is better to exhume and examine the truth than to keep it buried.

Dream of the Dog demonstrates how those who have been violated or hurt in the past want/need to talk about what they have been through. More than anything else, they want validation. They want to know that the truth of their experience has been acknowledged. The play notes the irony that, in many cases, the injured party wants acknowledgement from the very person that caused the hurt; and so the “survivor” has a rather odd bond with the perpetrator.

In such a context, the word sorry functions as that validation, even though, as one character asks, “Can sorry ever be enough?” The honest and open engagement around the past does not erase all the hurt, but it does allow the traumatised to move on. It allows them to "let go" so that those who imposed the evil do not go on destroying their lives. In turn, those implicated as perpetrators of the wrong have a chance to face up to reality, to feel the force and fire of anger from the other side, and to gain greater congruency and truthfulness in their lives.

According to Dream of the Dog, reconciliations after gross injustice are less than perfect, even fragile, but one gets the sense that the resolution depicted in the play will hold because, at a psychological, moral and deep human level, some form of breakthrough has been achieved.

Blog readers are encouraged to respond to this entry. What are your views on how we as South Africans need to deal with the past?

Time for men to face up to the challenge of change

2007-07-23T09:15:00.000Z

In examining gender-based problems such as violence against women and child abuse, is it time for men to cut the bullshit and face up to the reality of what they need to do to bring about positive change, I ask in this piece leading up to women's month.

August focuses on women; but it may be well to devote some of the attention to men. Of course many of the women’s group (perhaps correctly) point out that there is no place for men in their cause. After all, men are the source of many of their issues. They might also remind us that when men are included in key activities (on the matter of gender) they are (again) likely to dominate, and marginalise the voices of women.

Such women’s groups – strong, strident and angry – are needed (age-old problems sometimes require radical voices to foment fundamental change), although one might suggest they are more in the mould of women’s rights activists than gender campaigners.

However, we cannot get away from a focus on men. In struggling to realize the human rights of women, men are implicated in the solution. Even if changes in policy and law are won, we will need to see a change of mindset from men in particular, to bring about positive and democratic change.

For men, a good place to start is with ourselves. To look inwards; to review who we are and what we do; to change our attitudes, how we see things, and also how we react to the social challenge of getting involved.

I will suggest that we start by looking at ourselves in relation to three areas. Firstly, in the area of sexual relations, men need to be less selfish. They need to be focused less on the destination and take into account that women partners savor moments before and after sex, much more. In survey after survey, women complain that men are poor lovers (and are more inclined to get it all over within 60 seconds). They moan about our failure to understand that they see sex as part of the broader understanding of intimacy which, in their view, should often be linked to romance and to being valued and respected.

In a sense, our behaviour in relation to sex echoes a wider dysfunctionality with regard to relationships and to meeting the needs of our partners. The root of the problem here is many men are emotional misers/emotionally inarticulate /emotionally unastute. This affects the quality of sex with women who, I am told, respond better to blokes when the latter are more in tune with them and what they are going through.

Secondly, men need to look at issues around stress and inadequate communication in personal relationships. It starts when men fail to find the right balance between work, their own personal time and good social interaction. The long hours at work are seldom balanced with enough attention to the other dimensions within lifestyles. As a consequence, stressed out men bottle-in their problems. Those closest to us would like to talk to us about certain personal and family matters and about how we are coping, but they constantly hit a blank wall. In the end they withdraw or give up, and we are left in isolation. Such shutting down on the part of men exacerbates the pressures and often leads to excessive drinking, and to the insidious build-up of health risks.

Thirdly, men often don’t realize that they need friends and that they need to maintain good friendships. Men are almost always interacting with other men, but in most cases this is superficial. In most cases, “friends” are actually acquaintances and the links are maintained for opportunistic reasons: we work together, we are discussing a deal or, in desperation, we need someone to chill out with. As time moves on, we lose contact with close friends. When we meet in the street or the mall, we greet like old buddies and promise to link up, but never make the time. These are some of the questions: How do we select our friends, and do we value the really good guys in our life - or do we retreat? Do each of us have at least a single friend (a mate, as the Ozzies say) who will give us tough feedback and challenge us when we mess up? Who can tell us to cut the bullshit and face up to reality? Are we encircled by a close group of trusted male buddies that we can talk to about personal things, or are our associates just “die manne” that we enjoy drinking beer and discussing sport with.

Fifthly, men need to learn how to relate better to their kids. The same problems mentioned above (of withdrawing, of excess stress and of avoiding discussion of personal issues) damage our relationships with children. In building our families, communities and society, we need to be conscious of the wider impact and influence of how we relate to our kids. Relate badly, oppress them, close down their thinking, teach them bad habits with regard to personal relationships and we sow the seed for broader social dysfunction and pathology.

Although we must (and usually do) love all our kids equally, we are given particular responsibilities with regard to the boy child. We are expected to provide a role model and to provide guidance that would prepare the boy to go into the world and deal with its pressures, demands, opportunities and wonders. Let’s admit we don’t always know what to do and, especially during their teenage years, problems arise. We should be bold enough to talk to each other and seek out relevant information and advice. Our girl children of course also need preparation to go out into a world filled with entrenched attitudes and rules. We need to work with our partners to ensure we prepare our girl children to be confident and bold women, ones with the strength of character to pursue their goals in life with style and strength.

Another thing that puzzles me about men is what I sometimes see as “herd” instincts. Although men claim to be tough (and some of them openly admire intimidating and bullying behaviour as a style of managing and doing business), there is actually a great deal of cowardice in the ranks when push comes to shove or when the chips are down. The tendency of men to conform and to seek acceptance by who they view as having power is what contributes to conformity and the dearth of innovation.

In business, if the young men “copy” their forerunners (some call this mentoring) well enough, they are more likely promoted. If you don’t rock the boat, if you fit in, you stand a better chance of advancement and if you come from the same school and university as a key executive in the business, all things being equal, you are likely to be given the juiciest projects to run. Men also like to conform in other spheres. At a workshop with a group of young men in Alex some time ago, one young married man said he was loathe to help his wife by hanging out the washing in the yard. “My friends would mock me and claim I am under petticoat government”. Another said that friends told him that one needed to slap one’s girlfriend now and again so that she stayed in line and knew who wore the pants. He noted that it took courage to take a stand against such behaviours, but that for many guys, peer pressure takes the upper hand.

In organizational situations, this herd instinct (mainly from men) becomes a barrier to renewal and change. The effective change manager must devote a great deal of effort to breaking the “group think” by encouraging more open ended and creative responses to the possibilities and challenges in the environment.

These are the soft issues (although in change management we say the “soft stuff” is really the hardest); I now turn to the hard issues of sexual violence against women and what I view as the challenge to get involved in actions to combat the scourge. Many women’s groups prefer to go it alone on these issues. But such a line is a mistake. Not all men are perpetrators. And women need as many allies as they can muster to take up this issue. Men are well placed in corporations, in the legal system, in law enforcement and in the commanding heights of government. Winning them over (from a stance of bystanders/onlookers/condemners in the crowd to some form of concrete stance or action) can play a catalytic role in effectively combating sexual violence against women and girls.

We have to ask ourselves as men: in what ways does the general culture (how we view and treat women) contribute to an environment where violence against women can flourish? Are there areas or times (as in pub conversations) where we collude with views that see women as lesser beings, as ones who exist for the pleasure of men and as persons who are sometimes partly to blame for ill-treatment meted out to them.

Furthermore, in line with many public calls in recent years, the challenge is to join activities to highlight rape and sexual violence, and to call for social and legal reforms to eradicate these evils. Because you are I are not perpetrators, we cannot just fold our hands and claim that it is not our problem (especially when these evils and injustices spring from a society that we as human beings have created!). If we really find this violence repugnant, should we not be taking some form of stand or getting involved in practical action to eradicate such oppression of women?

Mandela: leadership lessons from the great man

2007-07-18T11:46:00.000Z

Today is a good day to honour Mandela’s leadership and to draw out some salient lessons from his life.

When we consider the Mandela saga, miracles as well as tough realities are key themes. Think about how people often refer to South Africa’s “miracle” – and how others (like me) counter that the transition from apartheid to democracy was actually the result of hard slog, commitment and careful processes. It also came as an aftermath to immense sacrifices by many. In the same way, when we speak of the “Madiba magic”, one can and must go beyond the surface to examine the concrete factors, traceable processes and actions that are in no way mystical. The cold stone floors of Robben Island also form a stark backdrop to the magic.

Interestingly, Mandela has never made a claim to being a god or infallible. He is a great leader, but equally human. He is a towering figure, but we can easily identify with many aspects that make up the man. He gets angry, he has soft spots (kids) and he has human failings. What is striking is the depth of his self-knowledge and self-acceptance as well as his strong but easygoing self-esteem. These qualities mean he is almost never over-defensive. Where he has erred (as in insufficiently tackling HIV/Aids when he was head of government), he forgives himself and moves on to the actions that will put things right. This trait also allowed him to quit formal political power early and (presently), as elder statesperson and “veteran,” to seek out reflective personal time.

The following are some key aspects of Mandela’s leadership:

1. He is empathetic. When he is interacting with people, he is “in the moment”. In the presence of ordinary folk, he seldom postures or plays a role and appears happy to simply focus on “taking in” their expressions, feelings and responses.

2. Mandela is strong on moral leadership. One gets the sense that, from his inner core, he is always seeking the light and always gravitating to do what is “right”. The ethical foundation to what he is doing or saying appears to be critically important to him: almost everything he says is subtly infused with this emphasis on the ethical. This may be the key to his aura.

3. The former President’s leadership style is characterised by consistency. Over his life, the context has changed many times and so have the issues; he has also deployed different strategies in response to such change. But at another level, he is stubbornly consistent. This consistency is linked to his strong moral and values-based approach. He has always espoused the same principles, including a people-based approach to leadership, constant communication, dialogue and a strong belief in basic human rights.

4. His life again proves that “taking a stand” is central to giving shape, form and strength to one’s leadership. The young Mandela worked out his position in relation to the fundamental issues and took stands on that. These stands form the bedrock of his leadership. In the sixties, Mandela consciously took part in illegal political activities. He also helped to launch an armed struggle to end the apartheid system. When he was arrested, he took a principled stand and spoke firmly and clearly about his convictions even though he knew such views had been criminalised by the regime. In the eighties, Mandela rebuffed government offers to release him on condition that he compromise his principles. Mandela always strongly advocated and upheld non-racialism and has always maintained that South Africa belongs to “all who live in it”. His convictions have many times moved him to anger and occasionally to lash out. On the other hand, his stands are generally articulated as inclusive and as an invitation to join him in working towards an ideal or objective. His stands are never inherently aggressive nor rallying points for the promotion of divisiveness and unnecessary conflict.

5. For Mandela, giving the lead (communicating his stand) and listening are two sides of the leadership coin. For him, listening to others is inherent in leadership. Given his experience, he reached a point where he could display astute leadership on his own (and there were certainly times that required that). However, from earliest times, his leadership was characterised by working in a team and listening to others. He thus always speaks of the “collective” and to this day swears by “consultation” with colleagues/comrades as a way of arriving at wise decisions.

6. Although in his younger years he broke up meetings of communists, the more seasoned Madiba demonstrates the power of openness in political leadership. It is not necessary to be factional, to close down debate, to label people as a way of avoiding a response to their arguments. Madiba is great because, even if someone is different (from another part of the democratic movement) or an opponent, he looks for ways to work together on a specific issue towards some positive social outcome. This makes him a smart negotiator, someone who is never too dogmatic and doctrinaire and one who honours others’ contribution to a cause.

The effective leader must complement his capabilities and expertise. Mandela brought this to the fore in the way he handled the management challenges of his job as the democratic nation’s first President. Seemingly, Mandela was aware that management or operational details did not sit well with him. During his presidency, he consequently gave the reigns of running government to then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki who combines leadership with strong management sense.

When the effective leader moves on, he or she does not leave behind a vacuum. One of the silliest titles for a book ever published was “When Mandela Goes”, with all the undertones it carried that South Africa would be leaderless and rudderless when Mandela left the Union Buildings hot seat. In reality, South Africa has no problem here: in the ANC and other parties, there are leaders aplenty. South Africa’s bigger challenge – by a long way – is at the level of management (referring inter alia to questions of follow through, holding people accountable and making things happen). There just appears to be insufficient management capability available to match the bold visions the country conjures up on every front. But that’s another story.

Mandela made his contribution to leadership development by illustrating that a true leader never creates a context in which other leaders wither and decline. Rather, other leaders flourish, grow in stature and excel in the presence and vicinity of the great leader.

Fit to Govern:fireworks in the battle of ideas

2007-07-03T05:48:00.000Z

I recommend that you read the book Fit To Govern: the native intelligence of Thabo Mbeki. In the many reviews and commentaries (most of them harshly negative), the writers fail to advise whether it would be worth your while to read this book. Some hint that reading the book would be a waste of time.

But I say: check it out for yourself. After all, the commentators had the occasion to read the book and found the contents stimulating enough to warrant writing about it. Furthermore, this book is about important issues and - significantly - about what the country’s president thinks about them.

You most likely don’t need advisory notes, but I will give you some pointers anyway:

(a) Roberts can overdo things a bit; for example he repeats his dig at the Sunday Times as the main culprit each time he refers to what he sees as the deficiencies of the media. One wants to say to the author: we do “get it” the first time.
(b) The writing can be dense. It is jam-packed with references. As Roberts explains political conduct and ideological positions in Mzansi, he takes you to various theorists as wells as other contexts and points in history.
(c) Roberts can pump up the venom, and spit it out in a spectacular way. He is able to combine an issue- and theme-based approach with strong person-based adversarialism. He appears to believe that he can say his say better if he foregrounds personalities; that blasting away at behaviour and statements of such personalities is a good way of debating contending positions on key socio-political questions. An alternative approach would place more emphasis on themes, trends and positions, and would devote less energy to dismantling the credibility of particular persons in the process of analysis.
d) The author can write well, make no mistake. Leave aside for a moment the current book that is the subject of so much debate. An example of Roberts’ writing skill is his recent newspaper feature on crime in South Africa. Another example is the greater part of his biography of Nadine Gordimer, No Cold Kitchen. (See Judge Dennis Davis’s views on the book at ccrweb.ccr.uct.ac.za/fileadmin/user_upload/WordFiles/ No_Cold_Kitchen.doc.)

I turn to my own reflections on Fit to Govern.

This book is not a biography; rather, it is a book about President Mbeki’s thinking and belief system. It tells us why he approaches issues and challenges in the way that he does.

I got the sense that Roberts puts himself into the picture a bit too much. We gain an insight into some of his longstanding battles, with the consequence that some bits of the book can be seen as gratuitous. For Roberts, it goes like this: Sunday Times calls me names (in comments referred to in a recent court case), I cite a reference where the Sunday Times’ editor is referred to as partially “brutalized” and I go into the kind of “psychologising” that I say I detest.

The book is engaging. It shows that ideas and contestation around ideas can be as gripping as an adventure novel or an action movie: the forces involved are similarly fighting all-out for ultimate survival or conquest. Fit To Govern is also invigorating in that it punts ideas that are heretical in terms of mainstream national discourse.

Roberts and the President suggest that we should all be reading, talking and engaging much more at this level (at the level where the clash between different worldviews is unmasked), and in this way become aware of underlying thinking frameworks that inform party positions and media editorials. Through such engagement we will better understand the mental frameworks that (a) inform the often heated political disputation in South Africa (b) underlie the implacable rivalry between influential voices in the media as well as between various other forces (a) would help us make sense of the massive communication gaps in South African political debates.

Fit to Govern touches on Mbeki’s view of the media and some of the practices of the media as seen through anti-imperialist spectacles. The question put here to commentators is worth reflecting on: are we sometimes too sloppy, shallow and superficial in our analysis of events?

The book also zeroes in on what Mbeki said or did not say on HIV and Aids. It does raise the question: is there scope to look again at what Mbeki’s real views are on HIV and Aids? Roberts researches obsessively and he brings to light views (from Edwin Cameron and Njabulo Ndebele) that they could find no record of an Mbeki statement to the effect that he does not believe HIV causes Aids. This issue reflects an important tussle between the two power centres – the media and political power.

At one level, it is about semantics; at another level, it is about truth, integrity and accuracy. Clarifying what words were spoken is relevant because the mass media believes that the expressed views of the President are central to understanding public policy on HIV/Aids, but also because it is the mass media that amplifies what it hears or thinks it hears. Yet we must bear in mind this is but one aspect of debates around HIV/Aids in South Africa. Clarifying what was actually said from the highest political platform does not deal with broader governance questions as it relates to the pandemic. Nor does it do away with the duty to examine the inaction and action(s) by government and various players over time on the issue of HIV/Aids.

In his book, Roberts is taking up arms against what he sees as a plethora of hostile and antagonistic attitudes to the President. For my part, I think Thabo Mbeki as leader is often underrated or mis-rated. Though tough challenges remain, he has led the country through a period of undoubtedly significant achievements. He becomes a more imposing figure as one considers the challenge of finding a suitable successor.

Can Tokyo Sexwale be as visionary on Africa, can Kgalema Motlanthe challenge the power structure of multilateral bodies as eloquently, can Jacob Zuma manage and co-ordinate policies as well? Maybe they can, but would-be presidents and successors would have to show their mettle.

In responding to what he perceives as multi-sided attacks on Mbeki, and in fervently supporting Mbeki’s resistance to imperialism, Roberts allows the pendulum to swing too far. He does not discuss nor debate any areas of weakness, forgetting that no leader has 100 percent capability, wisdom and vision on every front. Roberts also forgets that every leader has their own internal struggles to contend with (and manage). Thus he does not probe, for example, developments in the party – with the advent of Zuma mobilisation – and what President Mbeki and the ANC NEC could have done differently to have forestalled the groundswell of support for a Zuma faction. Nor does he discuss whether Thabo Mbeki could have communicated better on HIV and Aids – so that he could have achieved a positive outcome and united action between government and NGOs during his two terms.

Roberts is consumed with rebutting the slings and arrows from various quarters (trade unions, black journalists, the conservative and ultra-conservative liberals and certain voices internationally). That task (of acting as defence counsel) is so central that for him, the book is no place to discuss Mbeki as anything but a saint. In practice of course, Mbeki does not appear to view himself as angelic and his frequently-expressed commitment to dialogue, debate and vibrant intellectual activity would suggest that he is not averse to some critical reflection.

Fit to Govern makes strident comments about a set of people that can be described as the who’s who of the media world. Roberts prefers to lash out, and his choice of phrasing seems to be designed to provoke a reaction. It will be interesting to see if - and how - the victims of his tongue lashing will respond.

Fit To Govern – notwithstanding flaws and imperfections – contains many nuggets and food for the mind; in certain key areas , it challenges us to think differently about the contest between power groups in South African society.

Fit to Govern: there's certainly fireworks in the battle of ideas

2007-07-03T03:40:00.000Z

I recommend that you read the book Fit To Govern: the native intelligence of Thabo Mbeki. In the many reviews and commentaries (most of them harshly negative), the writers fail to advise whether it would be worth your while to read this book. Some hint that reading the book would be a waste of time.

But I say: check it out for yourself. After all, the commentators had the occasion to read the book and found the contents stimulating enough to warrant writing about it. Furthermore, this book is about important issues and - significantly - about that the country’s president thinks about them.

You most likely don’t need advisory notes, but I will give you some pointers anyway:
(a) Roberts can overdo things a bit; for example he repeats his dig at the Sunday Times as the main culprit each time he refers to what he sees as the deficiencies of the media. One wants to say to the author: we do “get it” the first time.
(b) The writing can be dense. It is jam-packed with references. As Roberts explains political conduct and ideological positions in Mzansi, he takes you to various theorists as wells as other contexts and points in history.
(c) Roberts can pump up the venom, and spit it out in a spectacular way. He is able to combine an issue- and theme-based approach with a strong person-based adversarialism. He appears to believe that he can say his say better if he foregrounds personalities; that blasting away at behaviour and statements of such personalities is a good way of debating contending positions on key socio-political questions. An alternative approach would place more emphasis on themes, trends and positions, and would devote less energy to dismantling the credibility of particular persons in the process of analysis.d) The author can write well, make no mistake. Leave aside for a moment the current book that is the subject of so much debate. One examples of Roberts’ writing skill is his recent newspaper feature on crime in South Africa. Another example is the greater part of his biography of Nadine Gordimer, No Cold Kitchen. (See Judge Dennis Davis’s views on the book at ccrweb.ccr.uct.ac.za/fileadmin/user_upload/WordFiles/No_Cold_Kitchen.doc.)

I turn to my own reflections on Fit to Govern.

This book is not a biography; rather, it is a book about President Mbeki’s thinking and belief system. It tells us why he approaches issues and challenges in the way that he does.

I got the sense that Roberts puts himself into the picture a bit too much. We gain an insight into some of his longstanding battles, with the consequence that some bits of the book can be seen as gratuitous. For Roberts, it goes like this: Sunday Times calls me names (in comments referred to in a recent court case), I cite a reference where the Sunday Times’ editor is referred to as partially “brutalized” and go into the kind of “psychologising” that I say I detest.

The book is engaging. It shows that ideas and contestation around ideas can be as gripping as an adventure novel or an action movie: the forces involved are similarly fighting all-out for ultimate survival or conquest. Fit To Govern is also invigorating in that it punts ideas that are heretical in terms of mainstream national discourse.

Roberts and the President suggest that we should all be reading, talking and engaging much more at this level (at the level where the clash between different worldviews is unmasked), and in this way become aware of underlying thinking frameworks that inform party positions and media editorials. Through such engagement we will better understand the mental frameworks that (a) inform the often heated political disputation in South Africa (b) underlie the implacable rivalry between influential voices in the media as well as between various other forces (a) would help us make sense of the massive communication gaps in South African political debates.

Fit to Govern touches on Mbeki’s view of the media and some of the practices of the media as seen through anti-imperialist spectacles. The question put here to commentators is worth reflecting on: are we sometimes too sloppy, shallow and superficial in our analysis of events?

The book also zeroes in on what Mbeki said or did not say on HIV and Aids. It does raise the question: is there scope to look again at what Mbeki’s real views are on HIV and Aids? Roberts researches obsessively and he brings to light views (from Edwin Cameron and Njabulo Ndebele) that they could find no record of an Mbeki statement to the effect that he does not believe HIV causes Aids. This issue reflects an important tussle between the two power centres – the media and political power.

At one level, it is about semantics; at another level, it is about truth, integrity and accuracy. Clarifying what words were spoken is relevant because the mass media believes that the expressed views of the president are central to understanding public policy on HIV/Aids, but also because it is the mass media that amplifies what it thinks it hears.

Yet we must bear in mind this is but one aspect of debates around HIV/Aids in South Africa. Clarifying what was actually said from the highest political platform does not deal with broader governance questions. Nor does it do away with the duty to examine the inaction and action(s) by government and various players over time on the issue of HIV/Aids and broader governance questions as it relates to the pandemic.

In his book, Roberts is taking up arms against what he sees as a plethora of hostile and antagonistic attitudes to the President. For my part, I think Thabo Mbeki as leader is often underrated or mis-rated. Though tough challenges remain, he has also led the country through a period of undoubtedly significant achievements. He becomes a more imposing figure as one considers the challenge of finding a suitable successor.

Can Tokyo Sexwale be as visionary on Africa, can Kgalema Motlanthe challenge the power structure of multilateral bodies as eloquently, can Jacob Zuma manage and co-ordinate policies as well? Maybe they can, but would-be presidents and successors would have to show their mettle.

In responding to what he perceives as multi-sided attacks on Mbeki, and in fervently supporting Mbeki’s resistance to imperialism, Roberts allows the pendulum to swing too far. He does not discuss nor debate any areas of weakness, forgetting that no leader has 100 percent capability, wisdom and vision on every front. Roberts also forgets that every leader has their own internal struggles to contend with (and manage).

Thus he does not probe, for example, developments in the party – with the advent of Zuma mobilisation – and what President Mbeki and the ANC NEC could have done differently to have forestalled the groundswell of support for a Zuma faction. Nor does he discuss whether Thabo Mbeki could have communicated better on HIV and Aids – so that he could have achieved a positive outcome and united action between government and NGOs during his two terms.

Roberts is consumed with rebutting the slings and arrows from various quarters (trade unions, black journalists, the conservative and ultra-conservative liberals and certain voices internationally). That task (of acting as defence counsel) is so central that for him, the book is no place to discuss Mbeki as anything but a saint. In practice of course, Mbeki does not appear to view himself as angelic and his frequently-expressed commitment to dialogue, debate and vibrant intellectual activity would suggest that he is not averse to some critical reflection.

Fit to Govern makes strident comments about a set of people that can be described as the who’s who of the media world. Roberts prefers to lash out, and his choice of phrasing seems to be designed to provoke a reaction. It will be interesting to see if - and how - the victims of his tongue lashing will respond.

Fit To Govern – notwithstanding flaws and imperfections – contains many nuggets and food for the mind; in certain key areas , it challenges us to think differently about the contest between power groups in South African society.

A great artist who drew in blood - tribute to Sedumedi

2007-06-28T00:58:00.000Z

Why must great artists who have contributed so much die unsung and largely unrecognised? What is wrong with this new South Africa that we cannot honour such courageous and visionary figures, asks Terry Grove, a guest contributor to the blog. By TERRY GROVE

On 11 June 2007, the artist from Meadowlands, Percy Sedumedi died. This notice was smsed by his youngest daughter, Itumeleng. “My dad passed away last night. Was with him yesterday afternoon, was convinced that he’s getting better but hey… TB.”

After the normal initial shock and sadness one feels at the loss of a loved one set in, I remonstrated with myself. TB - how is it possible for someone to die of a preventable or curable disease in the 21st century and in South Africa?

Not one of the myriad newspapers in South Africa carried an obituary, not in the week that he died or the weekend of his burial. What is wrong with us? How is it possible that not one of Percy’s friends thought of it?

I am not looking to apportion blame or indulge in a meaningless diatribe but I have so many niggling questions. Percy, talented artist – creator of the Messenger Series (I have one on my wall), and the comic “Travels of the Free Spirit”, founder member of the Soweto Artists Association and sculptor died penniless in a Johannesburg hospital.

How is it possible that one of the people who helped keep freedom’s dream alive in our hearts during the turbulent 70’s and 80’s died such an ignominious death a week before the 31st anniversary of the 16 June 1976 student uprising? Who in Soweto can forget the exhibition mounted by Percy, Fikile and others at the height of the ’76 uprising? Some of the works on display were drawn in the blood of the artists. This was done to demonstrate their solidarity with the students, despite the danger of imprisonment.

The anecdotes of Percy’s antics are legendary – some comical, some politically astute and others sad. He was the classic troubled genius – as art-lovers we marvel at his genius while, for his family, the troubled side, in terms of his role as husband and parent, was often the more immediate reality. Although he loved Connie and their girls, he never cracked the father- spouse thing. He did not quite get that having a family meant that material provision needed to be constant. Neither did he get it that being a dad means you actually need to be around when children are growing up.

For Percy there was no middle ground, always the high or the low – good or bad. And when they were good they were mind-blowing. My memories were mostly the mind- blowing stuff.

Percy entered my life when I was an adolescent. My father brought home a stranger one day in the late 70’s. He had met him on the Grand Parade in Cape Town. His artwork was rolled up and carried under his arm. He knew nobody in Cape Town but was determined to exhibit his work and not via the route of the white gallery owners.

So Percy came home to number 12 Sondousteeg, Silvertown and became one of my brothers. A strapping round-faced individual that fitted right in with the Matthews family. I was intrigued by his speech patterns. In one sentence he would use a mixture of Sotho, Zulu, English and Afrikaans and more often than not the sentence would end with “d’jy ken”. Percy was ahead of his time linguistically.

His artistic output during the period he spent in Cape Town was prolific. Not only did he draw and paint, he also made sculptures of plaster of Paris. These were baked in our kitchen oven.

When the Community Arts Project (CAP) was launched in Mowbray in the late 70’s, he conducted Sculpture classes that my brother Quinton and I attended for a while. My presence was merely to make up the numbers and to experience Percy the teacher.

That I had no obvious talent was no matter – art is for everybody and the communion of kindred spirits was enough. He made no distinction between people and embodied the concept ‘motho ke motho ka batho babang’.

Percy made me understand the nuances of South African life. Language and how he mixed it up forced me out of my English – Afrikaans comfort zone. He was as uninhibited as a child and the world became an infinitely wondrous place when he was around. He was so accepting of other people and their opinions.

David Blackwood, the Canadian artist from Newfoundland, says: “I’ve got a strong belief that people who’ve gone before are watching, observing. And they’re in a position to help you as well – I think they watch in a positive way”. I recall these words and I can almost hear Percy say, “I’m around, d’jy ken”, and I am comforted.

Percy Sedumedi was born on 6 October 1950 in Sophiatown. He married Connie Senoele and was the father of Lerato, Kagiso, Nina and Itumeleng.
By TERRY GROVE, Guest contributor.

(As always, readers are encouraged to comment and, in so doing, to keep debate and discussion alive!)

Weighty questions face ANC policy indaba

2007-06-25T02:27:00.000Z

As the ANC goes to its policy conference – aside from its bruising succession bun fight – it has major issues it needs to address.

It needs to arrive at decisions on how many provinces there should be and their role; how it should define its relationship to the business sector, and; how to manage top leaders’ involvement in the business world. It needs to look at relationships with other stakeholders, whether it be alliance partners, NGOs and spontaneous grassroots mobilization such as in Khutsong. Furthermore, it needs to look into how it can use its clout in society to translate the key gains made into wins that are more sustainable and thoroughgoing in society.

It might be better to tease out the “internal” issues and group them under the rubric of party modernization. Such a labeling would encourage the party to tackle, in an integrated way, a broad range of problems and challenges, for example around internal organization, ethics, cadre development, effective succession management (see my older post on this issue) and the potential of contamination of party idealism by BEE deals (also see my older post on this subject).

Modernisation would presuppose that the party is willing to scrutinise those elements of its liberation movement mode of operating that it should abandon. It should also consider what innovations it needs to make for better policy making, effective functioning in parliamentary processes and ensuring policies become practice (especially given the constraints and requirements of bureaucratic implementation).

As part of modernising, it should examine ways it can engage, enrol and involve the large number of people who are lapsed members but who still support the party. Here the liberation movement may want to have a closer look at the suggestion by commentator Aubrey Matshiqi that the party should allow for sector-based membership (e.g. for professionals) that can function alongside local branch membership.

This, he argues, will save older and jaded “revolutionaries” – if one could still call them that – from dreary branch meetings and at the same time draw them in to key discussions, debates and initiatives. This echoes a suggestion I made some time ago to Joel Netshitenze about ways of including sympathetic but independent professionals who otherwise remain on the sidelines.

I also proposed to him that the ruling party consider an annual think-tank session between the President and academics, researchers and well-placed thinkers on social issues who are aligned with transformation and a progressive agenda and who possess particular information, knowledge and insight arising from their specific areas of work.

Party modernization will be a journey and not a single event; but a start needs to be made to ensure renewal and revitalization rather than decay and atrophy.

On the policy front, the challenges are many and often enormous. The big question is: Will the ANC formulate something fundamentally new and different going forward - or will it be just more of the same? Will it forge a formula that will propel the country beyond the significant (compared to the past) yet modest (compared to the wide-ranging pressures & constraints) developmental position it has reached. Reading the documents, I also asked myself: To what extent is the party willing to go further (be more innovative, creative, entrepreneurial and radical) than public sector officials and government departments in generating ideas for solving stubborn development problems?

The country is bedeviled, for example, by:
- a gap between rich and poor that does not seem to be abating
- youth unemployment and the problem of transitioning youth from schooling, training, studies and unemployment into work.
- the enormity of the immediate skills shortage being experienced as the economy revs up and government rolls out major infrastructure investments, and a longer term malaise in its education system that makes it unable to properly supply the country with the capacities it needs.
- a huge backlog in terms of efforts to ensure that good start-up businesses, particularly those owned by black people and which have been operating successfully for a long time, grow, and cross over into the bigger mainstream.
- the failure to get optimal bang for buck in terms of results and social change outputs in vast areas of public sector activity.

The majority of policy challenges can be seen as a subset of – or closely linked to – the imperative of ensuring rapid reduction in levels of inequality. The problem of inequality is thus in the A-league of policy conundrums that need urgent answers. The ANC must this week come up with a policy package to ensure the movement of larger numbers of people into a life of dignity that includes participating meaningfully in the economy and society.

Economic growth is also another one of those A-level policy challenges. There are many people – including COSATU’s Zwelinzima Vavi – who mock the idea of economic growth and count it as useless if workers and the majority of black people don’t benefit in substantial ways.

I take a different view. Even as we argue about how to slice the cake, we should be taking decisive steps to grow the cake (as well the size of the oven and range of ingredients too, if you like).

We must generate the resources and opportunities to match the population’s needs now and into the future.

In this connection, the ANC must lead us to defining an industrial growth strategy. Such a strategy will require that as a country we are prepared to pick winning sectors (and give solid support to such sectors), in the same way that South East Asia countries selected automobiles, electronic goods and computer chips as areas for targeted growth. Of course, to make sense and to avoid waste of state resources, such selection decisions needs to be built on emerging trends and on particular national advantages, although there are cases where competitive advantage can be built up through some lateral thinking and concerted government action.

Once the sectors have been identified, government has to grapple again with the support systems required for these and other sectors. It needs to fix problem areas – such as skills provision – and do so in ways that give priority and urgent focus to the needs of identified key sectors.

The ANC thus has its plate full. And although everyone knocks our ruling party for its many faults, they look it to forge answers that will help our society take that much vaunted quantum leap forward. As ANC representatives prepare to enter their policy conference later this week, one can only wish them – apart from quality deliberations that are fact-based rather than faction-based – lots of good luck.

I would like to hear readers' views on this and other blog entries. Let's keep debate and discussion alive! - FM

Wage talks, negotiating tactics and closing gaps

2007-06-22T06:27:00.000Z

The public sector wage negotiations bring to mind my own experience in wage negotiations in recent years, when I worked at the Post Office on a contract post in the Human Resources Division.

Recall that some years before I had been part of COSATU, working in the head office of the labour giant. Is this an anomaly? No, because I see no contradiction in the fact that I have been employed on both sides of the fence. In my perspective on social change, one can work for just outcomes wherever one happens to be located.

What was interesting during my brush with labour-management consultations then, was the discourse employed by the unions. Although it was about 5 to 6 years after the birth of the new democratic order, the COSATU union in particular viewed management in the same way that the federation’s affiliates viewed apartheid-order bosses. Unions in each meeting referred to management as "Damagement", reminded us from the outset that management could never be trusted and dismissed as "management's problem" any requests that labour should help curb postal theft in the international division.

At one stage in talks with unions, when I had finished an input on a proposal, the unions’ leader commented that, given what I had said, I could not have been genuine when I was active in COSATU. That barb had less to do with what I had said (I had given technical information about the state of the company), and more to do with trying to disorientate the discussion as part of those old-style negotiating tactics.

This vignette raises questions such as: Who will mediate the new (healthy) tensions under a democracy? Is it better for the unions to face the hardegat "baas" of old or to have discussions with former comrades? Would some (in management and unions) prefer out-and-out conflict rather than discussions that are characterised by some shared visions – would this be in line with their inherited strengths?

In the course of negotiations, there was:
- Baiting and name calling (unions referred to management as Damagement).
- Some areas of co-operation and isolated instances of mutual respect.
- A frequent going-back on consensus points reached
- Delaying tactics
- Regular denials that written communication had been received.

At one stage, the unions arrived at a hotel for a two-day consultation and all was well until – at the coffee session before the start - one of the unionists spotted a cockroach in the old Pretoria hotel venue that management had managed to secure. The unions began the discussion by questioning the quality of the venue and accusing management of undermining them by hosting them in such a place. They suspended the meeting – and asked management to call them back on their cell phones when the former had found another venue.

In the negotiations of that year, the unions began the talks with a demand for wage increase of between 18% and 20%, if I can recall. This at a time when the Post Office had posted a loss of about R300m. Asked about the basis of their demand, the union responded that “it was for 300 years of oppression”. Such a demand is of course not unreasonable (given what black people in the country have lost over the decades). At the same time such a demand fits better in reparations talks than in wage negotiations. It would struggle to find traction in a context of a company that was then a sinking ship requiring tax payers to fork out millions to keep it afloat each year.

I cannot say more about those negotiations, except that I hope and pray that the colleagues and comrades on both sides at the Post Office have since found ways to negotiate in a better spirit. How did those talks end? The unions would not go on strike, nor would they sign off on management’s final offer. In the end, based partly on employee pressure from below (a significant number of workers desperately needed the wage increases as most of what they went earned straight to “loan sharks”), management simply effected the increase.

Here are some tips for conducting wage negotiations:
1.Negotiations should be based on information and facts. In this regard, management should share information about the financial position of the company or institution.
2. There should be some discussion of wider issues. These will include matters such as inflation and cost of living. Each party also should have an opportunity to report on wider impacts as they see them.
3. Parties should punctuate the talks with proposals that aim to progress the discussions, with each side taking turns to make proposals. Such proposals are an opportunity for one side to show that it has heard the other side, and is thus making adjustments while continuing to strongly assert its core case.
4.At the final point, parties should be open to some form of mediation. Mediation is critical when the process gets stale, and as table-thumping takes precedence and sides are not listening anymore.

In addition, in the South African situation, management should know that it also has an interest in a reasonable (rather than a stingy) wage settlement. If, for example, for a number of successive years (as has happened in the case of the public sector) management gets away with sub-inflation and below cost-of-living increases, it will ultimately be a pyrrhic victory for them. It is also far better to constantly give regular reasonable increases so that workers’ lives improve, rather than allow a deterioration (in real terms) of employees wages – the result, at some point, will be wage talks that begin with a huge (unbridgeable?) gulf between what management has budgeted to pay in terms of a wage rise and what unions and workers demand. In either case, the tension and anger will build up – and explode.

Also in countries with a rich-poor gap such as ours, serious consideration should be given to a sliding scale approach to wage increases. A sliding scale approach, where higher paid workers get a lower percentage increase and lower paid workers get the highest percentage, closes the income gap but also helps to close social and political gaps.

This is a dilemma for management in present day South Africa. Management must strive to close the wage gap and, at the same time, ensure retention of senior qualified staff (in a context of skills shortages, to boot). However, if companies and other organizations don’t work at closing the wage gap, the country will (continue to) have to deal with millions of angry people who feel that they have not benefited from the economic boom of recent years.

June 16 is a key part in the building of democracy

2007-06-16T06:28:00.000Z

June 16 is 31 years old this week. As usual, this day evokes strong feelings for millions of people.

The day – and the earth-shaking happenings associated with it – continues to stand out in significance, even after all these years.

June 16 1976 was, firstly, a turning point for the government of the day.

For the regime, it came as a bolt from the blue. Beyond the knee jerk, South Africa's rulers had no idea how to respond. And when they used guns against kids, they again demonstrated their inability to relate properly to a nation of wondrously diverse people as well as to govern a complex country with justice. They exposed their woeful incapacity to see and understand beyond the needs, wants and fears of a tiny minority. Aside from actual brutality of oppression, this unfitness to govern was the essence of oppression – and it was starkly showcased again for the world to see.

Furthermore, the Nationalist Party woke up to find that, despite harsh controls imposed on society, history was starting to wave goodbye to the mass acquiescence that had prevailed since the banning of organisations. There was a kind of tearing or rupturing, a birthing of something new. The realisation dawned on government that the old ways of working (and of controlling and commanding black people) wasn't working anymore and would have to be replaced by new ways. Of course, while they responded to their own anxiety about their capacities to rule the majority, their response was to consider reforms to apartheid. But the urban black populace became more vocal in demanding fundamental political change.

The realisation dawned on people – and students themselves who were initially surprised at how their local protest escalated to have national and international ramifications – that they had launched a major new response and that the dominant culture of fear in communities had been broken. The kids had defined a new way of engaging with the apartheid government.

But June 16th was also a major turning point for the ANC and other liberation movements. Up to that point, the liberation position was strong, well grounded and well articulated (See Mandela's statement from the dock - I am prepared to die. Rivonia Trial, 20 April 1964), with a sound intellectual and moral basis. However, leading organisations such as the ANC were comprised mainly of the educated and the elite. Where there was grassroots support, it was not really the organisation’s motive force.

June 16th signalled a new dynamism – it triggered a process of rooting the struggle for freedom more deeply in poor communities countrywide. It illustrated the will and capacity of poor and oppressed people to organise themselves.

Of course, such capacity was linked to social changes: by June 16th, urbanisation had become a greater force. Through that process, capitalism and apartheid had grouped poor black people in ghettoes that were ideal for organisation. In this regard, June 16 became our "intifada", operating on a geographical base that was constantly monitored and designed for control, but which as easily became a platform for myriad small militant sorties and constantly shifting centres of action and protest.

This dynamism infused the liberation movements with a new energy. From then on, the freedom struggle was more community based than ever before; and guidance and direction from the leadership was matched with leadership, perspectives and input from below. In time, the student and community-based resurgence linked with workplace organisation. Such organisation had begun on the basis of different disciplines - but solidified when we witnessed the 1973 strikes that sparked a major growth spurt in independent trade unions. It also tapped into the very potent contribution of the Black Consciousness Movement (which operated mainly at higher education institutions and which combined a strident voice, charismatic leadership, innovative intellectual work and projects in poor communities).

The June 16th protests added a new impetus and urgency to the work of the liberation movements. It made these movements much more robust, resilient and rooted; it increased the range of options for actions and resistance on the ground in South Africa. Clearly, the June 16th events (which began as protest but ended as resistance) contributed in fundamental ways to the democracy that we have today, and to the capacity of communities to hold leaders and parties in the new South Africa accountable.

June 16 1976 let a thousand flowers bloom.

In summary, the event and its immediate outcomes denote a watershed in that it:
· Consolidated and extended, to a significant degree, the grassroots foundations of the freedom struggle.
· Infused energy, perspectives, and leadership from the grassroots into the ANC and PAC, and in so doing added immensely to the resilience and strength of these bodies.
· Once and for all, broke the “spell” of fear that had been entrenched through the joint effects of repression and brutality on the one hand, and propaganda, ideological control and suppression of free speech on the other.
· As far as community-level activism went, moved beyond community organisation (as in self-help projects) to community mobilisation for political change.
· Gave concrete effect to the notion of mass struggle, a term often invoked by liberation movements but not yet generally or widely realised in practice.
· Demonstrated the efficacy of combining “leader-led” national protest action and people-led action undertaken at local level and co-ordinated through the efforts of hundreds (and later many thousands) of activists.
· Constitutes a key contribution to the building of democracy.

Black Rose gives insight into June 1976

2007-06-15T07:00:00.000Z

For anyone who desires to read up about the events surrounding that 16 June 1976, I can do no better than recommend that you read Open Earth and Black Roses, written by Sibongile Mkhabela.

Mkhabela was a participant in those events and gives an inside view of the thinking, events and immediate consequences of the Soweto student protest that flared up into a national uprising. She was one of the Soweto student leaders at the time, and the only women in the leadership group. The pictures in the book show her, dressed in school uniform, as a slip of girl and the other student leaders as equally extremely youthful.

The rose in the book’s title can be taken to refer to Mkhabela (then Mthembu) [her being the lone female in the Soweto Student Representative Committee] as the proverbial rose among the thorns. It also suggests beauty, innocence (of the young township girl), fragility and of course a sharp edge that signifies anger and a willingness to take action.

The leadership team was soon detained, and Sibongile tells of the strains of being isolated from her counterparts in women cells.

The first hand narrative of the protest is complemented by Mkhabela’s insights and perspectives around community, society and change. She comes across as a person with sound values, a strong belief in community development and an engrossing vision for the country. Mkhabela speaks from the heart and keeps her text direct; the text is free of contrivance, artifice and needless theorizing.

By the way, Mkhabela is currently CEO of the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund.

In the book’s closing section, she shares - in a powerful way - her aspirations for the country; she also conveys a deep concern about the fact that millions of people have not yet benefited in a life-changing way from democracy...

Open Earth and Black Roses – published by Skotaville Press – was released a few years ago, but has not been widely distributed. It can most likely be obtained by requesting it at your bookshop. You can also get your hands on the book by emailing info@nmcf.co.za or zaide@hivos.org.za.