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

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.

Open letter to Mantashe and Duarte

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Poverty remains an urgent issue for SA

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.

Discussion of media quality needed, not further regulation

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

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

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.

June 16 is a key part in the building of democracy

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.

Time to do something about Zim

It is now high time we did something about Zim. With hyperinflation, iron-fist action by police and the apparent free rein of mysterious "third force"-type squads, it is time we say "enough is enough".

I have heard the arguments that go some way to helping us understand the tolerance of many South Africans to the situation up there.

I even relate to some of these viewpoints. Remember Bob (the man that fought bravely in the Rhodesian liberation war) who in 1980 inaugurated the new country with that other Bob (Marley) whose music was a veritable soundtrack to anti-colonisation and anti-oppression struggles everywhere. That inauguration was a golden moment, one hard to remember now. Recall also that many promises were made to Mugabe by the West - how they would assist with loads of dollars and pounds (especially pounds, given who the colonising party was) to help the new state, inter alia with land reform. Of course (and this is what shapes the South African government's official view) the West reneged. The upshot was major fiscal problems (by then Zimbabwe, counting on the injection of these "reparation" or transitional funds, had begun to roll out major social delivery programmes). When the cutbacks on social spending began (as they had to, and as the World Bank and IMF dictated), civil society organisations and trade unions - responding to community and worker discontent - began to organise and mobilise against the government. The MDC was thus born out of such realities obtaining in the second decade of Zim independence. While the story is only complete if we also grapple with aspects such as the Matabeleland Massacre, the dictator-style control of Zanu PF, and the scandalous "farms-for-pals" practice (none imposed by, or linked to, macro pressures), we must take seriously this reference to the role of key Western governments and the ultra-powerful global bodies in Zimbabwe's crisis.

But valid as these perspectives are, it is now time to say "enough" to the way that that troubled country is run and to the battering of human rights there. We cannot remain stuck in the mode of "understanding" Mugabe. He has failed utterly as a leader and has absolutely no vision about where to take his country from here. Leaders seldom get ideal situations; they are supposed to provide insight, inspiration and a capacity to unite people precisely at a time of greatest hardship and adversity. Furthermore, Mugabe has overseen a string of injustices and human rights abuses - and the list of violations will grow the longer he remains in power. Thus I say: as valid as the understanding of the historical context is, millions of ordinary people are suffering in the present, and the imperative is to end the distress and torment sooner rather than later.

Of course, although I plead for us to stop being so passive and noncommittal, I do recognise that there are limits to what we can do, especially given that Zimbabwe has a democratically elected government. As South Africans, we are generally not advocates of effecting regime change in other people's countries. As government has said repeatedly since 1994, we have no fantasies of being the continents' bully boys, the USA of Africa, nor the Sheriff of the SADCC region. Consequently, it would be folly to campaign for our government to launch some spectacular military invasion.

But we can act; we can "be there" for the people of Zimbabwe; we can ensure that we do not - by our neutrality and disinterest - help to prolong Bad Bob's stay.

I believe we should support the progressive and democratic forces and the people of Zim. There should be regular on-site visits from SA - so that we undermine attempts to filter news and to cast a blanket of secrecy over the actions of Mugabe's stormtroopers. Such visits should be ongoing and should involve different groups - civil society, the "tripartite" alliance, parliamentarians, faith groups, etc.

Through such actions, ordinary Zimbabweans should get to know that their neighbours in the region care and that they are not forgotten. The ruling party and government in Zimbabwe will be made aware that other people are on hand to see for themselves what is happening and to disseminate accurate information.

In addition, such delegations should, wherever possible, work to create a conducive climate for reasonable and truthful deliberation in Zimbabwe about a way forward. Delegations from SA could encourage dialogue between key groups in Zimbabwe about a credible, realistic and meaningful change process that involves all stakeholders. We should be acting as a catalyst for real engagement, and - using our own experience of democratic and inclusive consultations of major political change - tackle and expose excuses by any party opposed to such a negotiated solution.

Put differently, South Africans must have a presence (there), and through such a presence be a voice of reason and a source of moral support to democratic groups seeking an urgent and decisive way forward out of the crisis. It is to be hoped that having good emissaries visiting Zimbabwe would reduce the space for the Zimbabwean government to act brutally and provide some protection for civil society groups who are organising for change. Also, being there will be a mechanism for giving South Africans up-to-date feedback - lest we have forgetful spells - about the harsh and repressive realities of Zimbabwean life.