Mantogate: the unraveling of national focus and direction

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”.

Old Word with New Meanings?

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.