Submitted by Peter Griffiths
Over the past week, many people have reacted with outrage to a video made by four University of the Free State students. For the most part I believe an opportunity for debate has been missed by media capitalising on sensationalist reportage, commentators quickly making sure they couldn’t possibly be caught on the wrong side of this one, and interest groups making a quick buck or two out of the chaos.
I’m not particularly interested in whether the video can be considered racist. Nor am I interested in the over-sensitivity surrounding “race” that is all too prevalent in the “new” South Africa. That there will be racism is a given — or at least some people not liking some other people. I’m not suggesting that racism isn’t an issue; it is, but the reactionary politics that has surrounded this incident is rather boring.
In 1994, a democratically elected government was voted in and quickly developed policy to integrate a divided society. While some of this policy was contentious — most notably the idea that you could uninstall apartheid by taking the best bits (direct access to the benefits of the state) of it to try to reverse it — the ideals were there to engineer “simunye“.
Why then are these four boys (supposedly representing the interests of their residence) so against integration? I suspect if you strip out age-old prejudice (the “good fences make good neighbours” stuff), naivety and some good ol’ insecurity, it may be a simple jump to blame the government. The ANC has done little to progress the idea that black people can lead effectively — in fact, at all. I’d say it has done its largely black electorate a massive disservice in this regard. So while the policy was potentially in place to create a wonderland on the southern tip of Africa, delivery went MIA.
The ANC had a sterling opportunity to show stiff-lipped whities, and indeed the entire world, that black people had the capacity to run a country well. Sadly, behind the charisma of Nelson Mandela and the good intentions of many in the government was a corrupt and incompetent charade of people often failing even in the pretence that they had a clue. So, how many people — white or black — would want to be integrated with that? Not many, I’d hope.
This is not a government with which I would like to hold hands (supposedly we’re meant to hold hands with the government in the dark while Eskom tries to rediscover fire), nor one of which I am particularly proud. In fact, I’m downright shamed by my leaders. Is it possible, then, that in a peculiar way our government has forwarded a very real argument for segregation (again) and thereby allowed racist beliefs to thrive?
So while the world scorns this abhorrent behaviour, unions work to get all the exposure they can possibly get and students campaign instead of learn, I think this is one case where the government has let the side down, horribly. Note that I don’t necessarily agree with what these four students did — degrading someone who is weaker than you is certainly no sign of strength or a display of any “culture” worth keeping, nor was it the right vehicle to express their concerns (if they had any, in fact). But, in a country where almost any critique of government policy by white people is considered racist (and the liberal usage of terms such as “coconut” or “disloyal” when black people decide to challenge the bulwark), there is little other avenue to deal with what is perhaps a very real issue.
When looked at like this, it’s clear that “racist” videos are unlikely to disappear. The infectivity of the largely black government has added kudos to every white supremacist that black people can’t lead, so much so that even previously liberal whites may wish to reconsider their point of view. The government’s argument that these are just whingeing whites is quite irrelevant — managing perceptions is part of its mandate. If this wasn’t the case, how else would it make poor black people believe their standard of living is improving in the face of rampant inflation and failing public services? An indication of this failure may be found in the increased strike action.
Is the “black” government any better than the former “white” one? Well, I’m not entirely sure. I can say I was critical and often embarrassed by the NP (prior and after its makeshift “rebirth”). It also lied to its constituency. It also made me feel like I didn’t belong in my country of birth. And, strangely enough, it also left me wondering how it was that I’d ever be able to live with my neighbour.
What happens next? We get more outraged, thereby missing a very real opportunity to teach South Africa’s next generation of leaders anything useful.
Peter Griffiths is the interactive editor of Carte Blanche, with a background as a journalist commenting on the African political economy. In his spare time he writes for several magazines and even finds time for the occasional blog post
Author
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
