Youth Lab Dialogue: “Justice for All? Youth Perspectives on Social Justice”

Youth Lab Dialogue: “Justice for All? Youth Perspectives on Social Justice”

Defining Social Justice:

“Social Justice is a process, not an outcome, which (1) seeks fair (re)distribution of resources, opportunities, and responsibilities; (2) challenges the roots of oppression and injustice; (3) empowers all people to exercise self-determination and realize their full potential; (4) and builds social solidarity and community capacity for collaborative action” –Social Justice Symposium, University of California, Berkley

In South Africa, Social Cohesion has become a buzz word, in 2012. The discourse of unity and integration was taken up by government, through the Department of Arts and Culture’s Social Cohesion Summit.  Upon analysing the idea of social cohesion, the Youth Lab team realised that while social cohesion is an end goal, there would need to be processes that leads us to a more unified nation. In a country with steep inequalities (income, health, educational), a history of institutional racism, high rates of violent crime and a myriad of constitutional questions about cultural and ideological differences.  Various political and union leaders have referred to a ‘socio-economic apartheid’, in which some aspects of South Africa’s social and economic activity is reserved for the rich, and substandard services are reserved for the poor. How then can people experience social cohesion?

We at Youth Lab argue that before social cohesion can be achieved we need to address the basis for social justice in the new South Africa. As such Youth Lab believes that without taking seriously youth experiences of social inclusion and exclusion on the basis of race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and even geography, an important barometer of social justice in contemporary South Africa might be missed.

The Event: Social Justice Dialogue

In a commitment to creating platforms for young people to add their voices to important public conversations, we host the “Justice for All? Youth Perspectives on Social Justice” dialogue. The dialogue will take the form of a plenary debate and smaller group discussions.

Potential discussion points:

·         What are the aspects or layers to social justice (or, conversely, division)? Race, class, gender, ethnicity, language, nationality, etc?

·         Is social justice a by-product of economic development and growth, or does it require its own attendant processes?

·         Is social cohesion, by definition, exclusionary? And, if so, what are the implications and what if anything should be done about it?

·         Who owns the process of social justice (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up vs organic development)?

·         What are the implications of the distinction between the material (e.g. access to basic goods and services such as housing, education and healthcare) and non-material (e.g. freedom of expression) aspects of social cohesion?

The dialogue will take the form of a moderated panel discussion, used to interrogate the idea of Social Justice.

Date: Thursday, 22 November 2012

Time: 18h00 for 18h30 – 21h00

Venue: Mandela Rhodes Hotel, Cape Town

Confirmed Panelists

Politics and Social Justice: COPE President, Honourable Mosiuoa Lekota MP

Education and Social Justice: Equal Education Deputy Secretary-General, Mr Doron Isaacs

Society and Social Justice: Social Justice Coalition Coordinator, Mr Gavin Silber

Please confirm attendance by sending an email to info@youthlab.org.za

President Zuma, we need to discuss a few pressing matters

The 100-year old African National Congress, mulled over a dozen Discussion Documents, during your party’s Policy Conference, which give an idea of the policies that will be adopted by the Government led (I use the term loosely) by you after the 53^rd ANC National Elective Conference in December.

The problem I have is that documents are being attributed to individual senior party officials rather than the collective movement and branches that, with the rest of South Africa, will be directly affected by these documents once they are adopted by the Government in the form of policy.

If the ANC was brutally honest with itself, conference delegates should have rejected all the Discussion Documents and called for the implementation of existing policies which have failed to reach full fruition. ANC officials, both at Luthuli House and at the Union Buildings have stated that Governments problem is not policy but that of implementation.

It is clear that a new leadership is needed to take South Africa forward by implementing policies, which are gathering dust. As you said, Mr President, a “radical shift” is needed.

Analysts, commentators and even some officials in your party have berated, in one way or another, the ‘Second Transition’ Discussion Document. Political analyst Eusebius McKaiser summed it up as being “nonsense” and your lieutenant, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe criticised the “Marxist jargon” used in the document.

If we are to insist on a second transition for South Africa, the transition should pave the way for a modern leader who truly understands the challenges faced by South Africa and a transition towards a change in our electoral system, which allows citizens to hold office bearers directly accountable, post-elections.

Unfortunately, the ANC has, since becoming a governing party, allowed “alien tendencies” to creep in, and in some instances these tendencies have been encouraged, though not explicitly.   It is almost as if corruption, disrespect and suppression of (differing) views have been adopted as accepted practices in Government and the ANC.

Personalities now reign supreme over the collective. When songs were sung in the name of Tambo, Luthuli and Mandela, it was because they represented what the collective ANC envisaged as a leader who held the interests of the movement at heart.

Today, when songs are sung in the name of post-1994 ANC leaders, it is for what that personality can do to better the financial and social status of a faction with sinister motives.

The ANC has turned its back on the principles of 1912 and 1994.

Mr President, I do not think that you are fit to take the ANC and the country to a higher level, which frankly, since 2009 you have not shown that you have the ability to do so.

For the sake of the broader needs of South Africa and the century old ANC, I ask that you do not stand for re-election of the ANC and the Republic, regardless of what the branches ask of you.

Please put the interests of the country above your own, Mr Zuma.  

We Need An Active Citizenry

South Africa is “alive with possibility” but only in so far as all South Africans are willing to work together. We have heard this or similar statements since the fall of apartheid – and we will continue to hear it until it is no longer necessary to remind the people of this wonderful country about the work that needs to be done.  And there is mammoth task ahead of us.

Government has plenty to answer for in the areas where they have failed or not done enough – like in health, education and creating an environment which is conducive to job creation. That said we cannot place the blame squarely on Government, because society is failing itself on many counts – we are content on accepting the small victories.  Democracy has made us lazy! Where is the active citizenry of the pre-1994 era? Granted those were very different times but the need to hold those in power accountable is still necessary.  The need to work towards a better South Africa still needs to be on our minds. We have become complacent.

Given the level of complacency, it was surprising to witness the level of protest against the Protection of State Information Bill (POSIB).  Why can’t we, as an active citizenry, passionately fight against the unacceptable levels of poverty, unemployment, inequality (the “triple threat”) and the poor state of the country’s education system? Why aren’t we angry? These things should keep us up at night.

The longer we sit back and watch, the harder it will become to realise the possibility of a South Africa that we will all be proud of. Where is that fighting spirit that resulted in the democratic elections of 1994? 

Voting is not enough; we need to become active citizens.

A while back a friend said “I want to change this country”.  This should be our nation’s mantra. We should wake up every morning and utter these words with purpose of putting them into action. Together, we need to fight for a better South Africa.

Life may be comfortable for some of us; but as long as the majority of our compatriots struggle, we should never stop fighting the good fight for a better South Africa. We must lobby and pressure Government whenever possible. We must ensure that justice prevails.

The good fight is never an easy one, but it remains a necessary one. Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu. We should not rest until South Africa is the kind of South Africa we all dream about. We need to work together and for one another.  Let us again become an active citizenry.

I want to change this country.

Voices in the wilderness

This is my column which was published in the Black Business Quarterly (BBQ) magazine:  http://www.bbqonline.co.za/articles/column/422-voices-in-the-wilderness

We need to start listening to divergent views on all matters of national interest, contends BBQ’s guest columnist

Columnist Eric Miyeni caused quite a stir on social network platform, Twitter, and various talk radio stations after his column, titled “Haffajee does it for white masters”, was published in the tabloid newspaper, the Sowetan. In his article, he berated City Press editor Ferial Haffajee, after her newspaper did a front-page exposé of the finances of ANC Youth League (ANCYL) president, Julius Malema.

Miyeni wrote of Haffajee: “Who the devil is she, anyway, if not a black snake in the grass, deployed by white capital to sow discord among blacks?”
These are the sentiments of an evidently angry man.The ANCYL later endorsed Miyeni’s views in a statement, declaring: “Miyeni should continue to be an honest, fearless activist who speaks his mind and not fall into the trap of those who blindly support interests of apartheid beneficiaries.”

On first analysing what Miyeni and the ANCYL (read: Julius Malema) say, one would conclude they are racist black men who go against the ideals of the new South Africa – or the Rainbow Nation, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu fondly calls it.These men are not racist, but are expressing (not always in the best way) their anger toward a South African system which, after 17 years of democracy, is still seen to favour and protect white South Africans. “White privilege” is the term used to describe this phenomenon.

We need to start listening to their views

Author and columnist Max du Preez responded to Miyeni’s scathing article, and likened him to Malema by saying: “Is Eric Miyeni trying to be Malema’s Mini-me?A view of this nature suggests that Miyeni’s view only exists because Malema’s does.

One needs to sit down and realise that the views of Miyeni echo those of Malema, only because there is a burgeoning group that is growing ever more gatvol with the status quo of “white privilege”.We need to start listening to their views.While middle-class South Africa labels these two young men and their ilk as radicals, controversial and racist, their grievances still remain – and we need to start having a conversation about these uncomfortable truths.

The views of Miyeni and Malema did not fall from heaven like manna. Their anger is a symptom of something bigger than their loaded statements. They are suffering from symptoms of a social disease, which society refuses to look at and talk about.As young as they were during apartheid, Miyeni and Malema grew up in an era when white people controlled the economy, a time during which black people where branded criminals.

Fast-forward to 2011 and black people only appear on the front pages of newspapers when implicated in some sort of scandal or crime, while white people continue to control the majority of the economy – this is from where Miyeni and Malema derive their anger.However, the two gentlemen have allowed their anger to get the better of them, instead of channelling it into well thought-out arguments that can be debated among the chattering class.

Poet Dylan Thomas once wrote a poem titled, “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night”, in which he conveys a powerful message of keeping a fighting spirit in spite of the circumstances.While, as South Africans, we should never condone defamatory statements, we should admire the fact that Miyeni and Malema have refused to go gentle into that good night, in the face of a divided society in which white South Africans continue to control the economic levers and black people have to continue proving themselves in the workplace, in the political arena as well as in sport.

Miyeni and Malema want black people to appear on the front of Sunday newspapers for excelling in their areas of expertise. Miyeni and Malema want Sunday papers not only to expose corruption in politics and state apparatus (which is predominantly black), but for the very same newspapers to expose corruption that happens in the private sector (predominantly white). They feel there are different sets of standards for black people and white people respectively.Renowned Tweeter and columnist Khaya Dlanga, in his weekly column, commented on the Miyeni saga thus: “It’s hard being black. I understand where Eric is coming from. It’s not something that people who are not of colour can understand. This is not to say that white people are unable to empathise.”

The sentiments of Miyeni resonate, even if slightly, with most black people. We can no longer afford to ignore the calls of controversial black writers and politicians. Controversial people make reasoned statements and reasoned people make controversial statements.Are we waiting for former president Thabo Mbeki or Democratic Alliance spokesperson Lindiwe Mazibuko, or 702’s Redi Thlabi, to say that we can no longer continue on this path, before we heed the call to start talking about the giant elephant in the room?

We need to start listening to their views.In our response – as South Africans – to Miyeni and Malema, we need to cease showering them with insults, as that perpetuates the cycle of arguments fuelled by emotion; we should rather engage in sound and reasoned arguments. Debate on transformation in the private sector and the mainstream media’s modus operandi are national issues that need to be discussed for South Africa to move forward.

As mentioned earlier, Miyeni and Malema are showing symptoms of a society that has allowed the status quo to continue for far too long. We, as South Africans, can remedy these symptoms by having brave conversations about what is so wrong with our 17-year-old democracy.Love them or hate them, they have begun the debate; this despite Professor Anton Harber, of the Journalism and Media Studies Programme at Wits University, saying that Miyeni and Malema stifle debate.We have not stopped debating; we have, in fact, started as a result of Miyeni and Malema.

We do not condone it when they assume a defamatory tone, but we can begin to find the message hidden in their oftentimes rude and emotional utterances – finding the diamond in the proverbial rough.
We need to start listening to their views. 

Report Without Fear, Favour or Prejudice

Let us talk about “The Media”, compatriots.  After the judiciary, the legislature and the executive the media is probably the most important institution in a democracy, most especially in an adolescent democracy like South Africa.  The media is the link between events and the people, the media informs, the media holds office bearers accountable when constitutional institutions fail. 

The South African media does all these great things, yet at about 12h00 every Sunday, after the chatting class has paged through their newspapers the social media platforms go berserk, questioning the mandate of the media.  The ruling party, in the run-up to the Local Government Elections said “We must realise that in this election the main opposition is the media”. Once united in the fight against an oppressive regime the ANC and the media are at loggerheads.   Questions about the line between reporting and commentary is said to be skewed, which the Press Code speaks against.  Should one be able to sense who a journalist voted for in the elections by the tone they take in a report, which is meant to disseminate facts, not opinions?

The Press Code, which is a guideline that any credible media publication abides by, I guess, it could be called the Bible of journalism, explains the role of the media in South Africa in reporting and not so technical, technical terms.  It should be condensed and the media should follow the simple yet profound principles of the judiciary.  The media should report without fear, favour or prejudice.

These core principles, if applied would send many journalists and their papers in the right direction. Yes there are some journalists and papers that have strayed off the right path, and need to guided, and the guidance lies in the principles of the judiciary.  Whether or not the courts follow these principles is neither here nor there; the point is that they are a solid set of principles by which journalists should use when reporting.

Journalist should not be afraid of pursuing suspected corruption in government (and the private sector). The front pages of newspapers are plastered with corruption in the public sector, given this, one would be fooled into thinking that little to no corruption happens in South Africa’s private sector.  Yes corruption in the government is something that affects us all in one way or another, but corruption is corruption and it should be reported on regardless of who commits it.

Favourable coverage by the media is not in the public interest as it does not properly inform consumers.  In South Africa corruption has unfortunately become synonymous with the ANC government, whilst clean governance is equated to the DA-led Provincial Government in the Western Cape.  There is good which has been done by the ANC in government and bad which has been the DA in the Western Cape, yet as consumers of news we do not read about this.

As already mentioned, as a reader you should not be able sense the journalist’s political affiliation by the tone taken.  The facts of the report should speak volumes rather than the journalist presenting an opinion piece under the guise of a fair report.  When writing a report any preconceived ideas should be left for an opinion piece.

The principle of reporting without fear favour or prejudice should be the cornerstone of journalism.  Reporting without fear, favour or prejudice is unequivocal.  The media played a role in bringing down the apartheid government and for that very reason the media fraternity holds a special place in the hearts of all South Africans, but we need to have this conversation.  Like the rest of South Africa the media needs to ask itself the following, “we are at this point, how do we get to the next point?”

Malema’s Nationalisation… Is It That Simple?

By now South Africa is well aware of the debate, which is being spearheaded by the ANCYL (read: Malema), about nationalisation. Recently the ANC in Limpopo has also backed the ANCYL’s call to nationalise certain sectors of the economy particularly the mines. Before I explain to why the debate about nationalisation is not about nationalisation let me give a brief definition of nationalisation.

 “…the process of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.”

History tells us that nationalisation does not work, regardless of how you package it and the ANCYL, I would like to believe, knows that nationalisation has not worked, does not work and will never work. So why does the ANCYL keep punting the big issue?

Government policy does not suggest nationalisation and this is affirmed by various statements made by various ANC leaders, both within the party and in Government. The Minister of Mineral Resources Ms Susan Shabangu said "My position is that there are challenges and I'm convinced that nationalisation, it's not an option for South Africa." On another occasion the Minister said nationalisation would not happen “in my lifetime”. So why does the ANCYL keep punting the big issue?

The way I see this issue, is that the ANCYL is asking “why, with all of South Africa’s mineral wealth are people still struggling?” Our streets should be paved with gold. To quote the Freedom Charter “the people shall share in the country’s wealth.” Whilst the Freedom Charter contains undeniable truths it must also be read and interpreted in the context it was written in. The truths remain.

If we look at Dubai at face value (disregard the population size, and other factors. I am using the Dubai model at the most simple of levels.) Residents in Dubai are reaping the rewards of their oil deposits. Revenue from oil is pumped back (excuse the pun) into the economy—residents pay little to no tax, new cities are being built; infrastructure improvements are made from oil revenue. This is what the ANCYL is asking for. If we bring things closer to home and we look at the Royal Bafokeng Nation, in the North West Province, which is supported by revenue from mining. That is what the ANCYL is asking for.

The chattering class, the social networks and “the media” have chosen to be selective in their hearing and all they have chosen to hear this whole debate is “we want to nationalise the mines.”

The ANCYL has said yes to nationalisation and other parties have said no to nationalisation, without offering alternatives. Here is an alternative: the ANCYL should be lobbying Government to expedite the mandate of the state mining company, the African Exploration Mining and Finance Corporation (AEMFC).

The ANCYL’s calls for nationalisation are not as simple as portrayed. The story of it being a ploy to bankroll struggling black mining firms does not hold water and should not be entertained.

We need to debate the ANCYL’s reasons maturely and not like kids on the playground, who merely point fingers and the one with the loudest voice wins.

Let's Talk About Race, Baby

Leading up to the first democratic elections in South Africa, there were a number of conferences like CODESA I and II, which ended in a stalemate. Negotiations then resumed with the Multi-party Negotiating Forum.  These forums resulted in, what is described as the most progressive constitution in the world as well as many political and economic resolution,s which would pave the way for a democratic South Africa—the Rainbow Nation.

During these lengthy and tumultuous negotiations, a key component was left out of the equation, that of race relations.  The various negotiating bodies made the grave mistake of assuming that once a democratically elected government was put in office and the Bill of Rights stated that “No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone…” we would by default hold hands, sing kumbaya and forget that discrimination, particularly racism was the order of the day, for many, many days in our history; during the years of apartheid.

For years after apartheid, South Africans have been getting on with life, whilst unconsciously carrying the feeling of “there is something wrong”.  Well ladies and gentlemen that “something” is race.  South Africans have been fooled into getting along without really getting to know one another.  Seventeen years down the line we are beginning to realise that we are all be South Africans but as much we are the same, we are very different, and that difference is race.

In every political, social and economic debate had on social network site Twitter, race makes an appearance, though (mostly) eloquently and respectfully debated.  Those who have been duped into believing that South Africans get along would be horrified when reading comments on News24 and TimesLive, which spew out racial epithets, both implicit and implied.  People are rightly angered by these comments, but we need to calm down and realise that there is a real problem behind these racist comments, which show that racism is still alive and kicking in the Rainbow Nation.

South Africans come from a long history of racism which will not disappear with a sprinkle of “Madiba Magic”.   We need to start talking about race, because ignoring it is like placing a Band-Aid on a gunshot would; whilst it may seem fine on the surface, underneath there is infection happening which will spread and eventually impact on the functioning of all organs.  

We need frank discussions about how we feel about other races—we need CODESA III.  People must be able to come forward and say that they are racists and why, so through a process of National televised events the mentality of racism can be understood and deconstructed.  Even if there are those who refuse to change their ways, at least then we know and parties can go their separate ways.   We need to stop looking past the problem and actually engage the problem so we can move forward. 

Racism will be perpetuated unless we talk about it. Racism is a social construct, which will only be broken down if openly spoken about. In some cases, through CODESA III, we will find that racism is a result of ignorance, fear or social-conditioning.  A 16 year old kid who says “I hate black/white people” was taught racism by his friends and/or family, once we openly talk about racial bigotry and give it taboo status, people will no longer feel free to spew out their drivel on News24 on TimesLive. 

We need to say no to racism in the home, on the internet, at the workplace, and the like.  Racists need to be told that what they are doing is wrong, and will no longer be tolerated.  We need to stop laughing at racist jokes (Note: jokes about race and racist jokes are different).

Let us talk about this disease and work towards finding a cure.