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.

South African Youth Need Direction

South African youth, the ‘leaders’ of tomorrow, are usually spoken about with little enthusiasm.  South African youth are seen as a group who would happily take yet are not to be seen when it is time to give back.  They have a sense of entitlement, and as mentioned in the previous post, they are not willing to work for what they want.  Given this one would not be blamed to believe that the youth of today are a lost generation.   Despite the doom and gloom, there are bright stars in a mostly dark sky. 

The Mail & Guardian has just published its annual “200 Young South Africans” supplement, which profiles 200 young citizens, 35 and younger, who have made a difference and impact in their various fields.  These are the leaders of tomorrow who have, notwithstanding their age, decided to lead today.  Mediocrity in many instances is the order of the day amongst young South Africans but these 200 youth leaders have chosen to stray from the pack and excel. 

It is freighting when young South Africans find inspiration in people who glorify crass materialism and in people who carry with them enough arrogance to fill a soccer stadium.   These are the people who young South Africans call “role models”-- it is no wonder that young South Africans are seen as a lost generation.   The 200 Young South Africans have managed to show that humble servants still exist, and that young South African have real role models to look up to.   

Society has never flourished whilst being led by arrogant and stubborn people, but the success of a nation can be found when it is carried by humble servants, who have chosen to lead in the absence of real leadership and who have chosen to quietly excel despite accepted mediocrity.   

Despite the excitement surrounding the Mail &Guardian’s supplement, which is a commendable initiative, very few will remember the names of the 200 Young South Africans and next week the same uninspiring leaders will be on the lips and minds of all young people, and these uninspiring leaders will be seen as the representatives of all young people.  The youth need to stop short changing themselves and begin to draw inspiration from the 200 Young South Africans. 

The youth cannot be led astray by those who go in blindly.  The youth need to ask themselves if the populist leaders of today are who they want to be the leaders of tomorrow.  The reality is that the many populist leaders capture their audience with their charisma, which is not sustainable.  What South Africa needs is leaders with character and the 200 Young South Africans embody what a leader with character is.  Character is what wins a marathon, charisma is what wins a sprint and the road ahead is long. 


During a conversation one of the 200 Young South Africans said "I want to change this country".  These are the people we want, these are the people who aspire for things greater than that which will change their immediate environment or bank balance.  They care for the greater good, in the long term.  They have a plan, and they know how that plan will be executed.

The lost generation must find direction, and that direction will be found when they decide to be led by the best.

We Need To Unite As Africans

During the dark days of Apartheid many South Africans were not able to freely express their political views and were subsequently forced to seek refuge in neighbouring African countries.  Knowing that the political climate in South Africa was not in line with basic human rights, our brothers and sisters to the north of the Limpopo accommodated us for years on end.  Political refugees were able to establish political structures in other African countries, and some even established families.

Now that South Africa is politically stable and the ‘gem of Africa’ (a situation which our neighbours in Africa indirectly contributed to) we are quick to forget that we were once in trouble and needed the help of our brothers and sisters north of the Limpopo.  The tables have turned and our fellow Africans now seek a better life here.  Instead of reciprocating the Ubuntu which they showed us, we replicate the pain and suffering which the evaded back in their troubled lands.

Before 2008 the word “xenophobia” was a word which was found only in dictionaries.  Today xenophobia is not only a dirty word, but has become an act, which black South Africans use to chase makwerekwere (derogatory term for foreigner)  back across the border.   The people, who during the dark days were brothers and sisters, have now been reduced to second class citizens, who are said to “steal our jobs”. 

Former South African President Nelson Mandela emphatically stated “Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another.”  The very South Africans who were oppressed under the Apartheid Government have become the oppressors— oppressing fellow Africans.  It boggles the mind that Africans would turn on one another, especially given the history of oppression on the continent.

Regardless of the circumstances in South Africa there is no way to justify the heinous acts of xenophobia; it even goes against the fundamental teachings of African community.  African culture speaks about caring and sharing, and accommodating those who need help, especially when their circumstances are dire.  This is not evident as Africans from across the continent face the danger of  brutal beatings as they walk the streets, the streets of another African land.

Xenophobic acts are at the core of the South African psyche, which has manifested from an ‘unafrican’ way of thinking which says “we as South Africans are better than the rest of Africa”.  We as South Africans were allowed to take from fellow Africans, now when it comes to giving back we respond with barbaric acts.

How many more fellow Africans will have to be assaulted and killed before the situation receives the attention it deserves?   

As Africans, we face the same struggles, and the struggles will only be overcome when we realise that we should not be fighting one another.  The common enemy is poverty and we can only conquer through unity as Africans.

Rest In Peace Mama Sisulu 1918-2011

The Transkei region has become an iconic space in the South African landscape because of the many liberation leaders that were born in that area. Both Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu were born not far from Camama, the village in which Nontsikelelo Thethiwe was born. It was only when Nontsikelelo started school at a local mission post that she, like Mandela, acquired the European name, Albertina.

In September 1918 the Spanish Flu, a particular strain of the influenza virus that had killed 40 million people worldwide, reached South Africa. The results were as devastating as elsewhere in the world. The conservative estimate is that the epidemic killed a quarter of a million people in South Africa, and the Transkei was no exception as more than 30 000 people died out of a population of 1 million.

Monica Thethiwe (nee: Mnyila), caught the virus and was seriously ill whilst pregnant with her first daughter and her second born, Albertina. Elinor Sisulu, daughter-in-law and biographer of Walter and Albertina Sisulu, records that “Umbathalala, as the flu was called in Xhosa, was particularly lethal to pregnant women and small babies” and the Mnyila and Thethiwe families feared that Albertina would be infected in utero. Despite this when Albertina was born to Bonilizwe and Monica Thethiwe on the 21 October 1918 she was in perfect health bringing great joy to her parents and grandmother.

Even after Albertina’s mother survived the flu she was constantly ill and physically weak. Given his wife’s condition, Albertina’s father decided that his family should stay at the Mnyila family household in Xolobe while he was away working on the mines. Albertina started school in a local primary school in Xolobe that was run by Presbyterian missionaries and it is here that she had to choose a Christian name from a list presented to her by the missionaries. Nontsikelelo chose the name Albertina, her family continue to call her Ntsiki, but she was known as Albertina at school and later the name Albertina Sisulu would become synonymous with the Freedom Struggle in South Africa.

Within her extended family Albertina was the eldest of eight girls and it was her responsibility to take care of the younger girls. Even from a young age Albertina showed strong maternal instincts, and this continued throughout her life. Her leadership qualities and maternal instincts underlined the respect she earned during the struggle when she was referred to as the ‘Mother of the Nation’. Albertina excelled at school in cultural and sporting activities and she showed leadership skills at an early age when she was chosen as head girl in standard five. However, Albertina was forced to leave school on several occasions to take care of her younger siblings (because of her mother’s bad health) and this resulted in Albertina being two years older than the rest of her class in her last year of primary school. Although at the time this did not seem a major inconvenience, later when Albertina entered a competition to win a four year high school scholarship this counted against her as she was disqualified from the prize even though she had come in first place. Angered by the unfair treatment (the competition rules had set no age limit on the prize) Albertina’s teachers wrote to the local Xhosa language newspaper, Imvo Zabantsundu, making a strong case for Albertina to be given the prize. Fortunately for Albertina the article caught the attention of the priests at the local Roman Catholic Mission who then communicated with Father Bernard Huss at Mariazell. Father Huss arranged for a four year high school scholarship for Albertina at Mariazell College. The Mnyila family was very happy and celebrated Albertina's achievement with the entire village, Albertina recalls that the celebration saying “you would have thought it was a wedding”.

In 1936 Albertina left for Mariazell College in Matatiele in the Eastern Cape and although very nervous she was excited to find that a local girl from Xolobe was a prefect at Mariazell. The school's routine was rigid and strict, pupils were woken up at 4am to bath and clean their dormitories, they would then proceed to the chapel for morning prayers. Although Albertina’s scholarship covered her board and lodging, she had to pay it back during the school holidays by ploughing the fields and working in the laundry room. Albertina only went home during the December holidays but she found this a small price to pay for the opportunity to attend high school.

With high school ending in 1939 Albertina had to decide what she would do after school. She decided that she would not marry but rather become a working professional so that she could support her family back in Xolobe. Whilst at Mariazell Albertina had converted to Catholicism and because she had resolved never to marry she decided that she would become a nun as she admired the dedication of the nuns who taught at the college. However, Father Huss advised Albertina against this as nuns did not earn a salary nor did they leave the mission post, so she would not have been able to support her family in the way she wanted to. Instead he advised her to consider nursing, as trainee nurses were paid to study. Attracted by the practical solution nursing offered Albertina took his advice and applied to various nursing schools. She was accepted as a trainee nurse at a Johannesburg “Non-European” hospital called Johannesburg General. After spending Christmas with her family in Xolobe she left for Johannesburg in January 1940.

Source:  http://www.sahistory.org.za/node/9070

It's Time To Build On The Foundations of 1976

On June 16, 1976 a day that began like any other, in Apartheid South Africa, a group of approximately 20 000 young South Africans, took to the streets of Soweto with the intention of peacefully protesting against being taught in Afrikaans- a language forced upon them.  Before the group of defiant youth could reach their destination, the Orlando Stadium, they were intercepted by a heavily armed police force.   Despite this the crowd remained peaceful, not so much as lifting a stone. All they did was to continue singing and waving their placards.  Even though the police force was not presented with an imminent threat they began to shower the group of youth with tear gas canisters, in an attempt to disperse the peaceful crowd.  It was at this point that the formerly calm situation escalated into frenzy, as the first, of many, gun shots was fired, and the group of youth turned their backs and ran in defence- the gunshots continued.

The class of 1976 fought for the South Africa we live in today, with many not being able to enjoy the spoils of their labour.   These are the youth-- young people who had the courage to fight for what is right in the face of danger-- that make one proud to be a young South African today. In view of this one has to look at the youth of today and ponder “what are the youth of today fighting for?”

 Some may ask, in a democratic South Africa why would the youth have to fight for anything when the fighting has been already done?  That is a valid question, and given the bloodshed that happened in 1976 we can all agree that enough fighting has been done.  Let us look at this from a different angle:  the class of 1976 laid the foundation, the most important component of any structure, and the youth of today have yet to build upon that solid foundation. 

The youth of today do not want to get their hands dirty; they expect that solutions will fall from heaven like manna.  The class of 1976 found it in themselves to go for what they wanted and never expected for their situations to solve through the sweat and toil of others, they felt that “if not me then who?” they got down on their knees and laid a foundation for the youth of today to build upon and the youth of today have yet to utilise that foundation to build upon.  The youth of today are happy to bask in the victories of others. 

We have witnessed the influence and power of the youth in the Middle-East who have realised that the change that they want will only be realised if they find it in themselves to labour for it.  The youth in the Middle-East, like the class of 1976 had no foundation on which to build, so they went and built it for themselves. 

There are certain youth politicians who assume to be continuing the work of the class of 1976, yet in reality seem to have an agenda of their own, which is contrary to the foundations laid by the heros of 1976.  What the youth must realise is that these politicians are not the custodians of all solutions, those with solutions go against the status quo and develop a positive way in which to solve problems, without the influence of others.  The problems that the youth face are numerous and will only be solved when they find it in themselves and stop depending on others.

A recent survey by the Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) found that 68% of youth see themselves having a better career in South Africa than anywhere else in the world, as encouraging as this may be, many do not realise that hard-work is needed in order to realise that future.  This is because many youth think that 1994 everyone was given a licence to relax and take up a laissez-faire attitude.

The youth need to draw inspiration from the youth of 1976, and realise that they did most of the work and all that needs to be done now is to build on the work they did.  The youth of today need to actively work for the kind of South Africa they want to live in, the kind of South Africa that they will raise their kids in.

The foundation has been laid by the youth of 1976, now your job as the youth of today is to build upon that foundation. If you do not, who will?