Well Done To The Springboks!!!

We did it! Thanks to the concerted support of the nation and the Springbok's hard work, South Africa is the 2007 Webb Ellis Trophy winner. In Gugs, we celebrated the win with tom-toms and vuvuzelas blasting on the streets. Braai fires were lit in every corner. Other sheebens went as far as to give everyone a free round at the strike of the eighth minute as the Boks proudly lifted a very proud president Mbeki on their shoulders. We decided to honour the Boks with the metronymic name of our township, Gugulethu (Our Pride).



Of course, there were spoilsports who thought us mad for celebrated a still leaves too much to be desired when it comes to transformation South African Rugby team. To me they were the missing the point, which is to put it pithily: My country, right or wrong.



Understandably England was not just going to hand us the victory. In fact the game was too much on the technical for charlatans like me, which was a good thing I decided to watch through the expert's eyes next to me. With my limited knowledge it seemed the English were more committed, almost desperate, than the calm and collected Bokke. The Bokke played as if they were the defending champions and not the other way around. The Proteas can learn a lot from the Bokke with that calm under pressure, and sticking into your game. And Bafana would do well to learn precision of skill in executing and punishing the opponent's mistakes.



Something that spoilt my celebrations in my eyes was the surly attitude of English players after the game. Perhaps I was spoilt the graciousness of Fiji players after loosing to SA, those long lap of humility and all. As the result they become my second favourite team. I counted about three English players who snubbed president Mbeki's extended handshake during medal presentation. I was thinking what's that all about. My friend, when I asked, just shrugged his shoulders and sighed; "There goes our colonial masters again."



It takes just a quick perusal in the sober stile of history to see how bad losers the English are, not just in sport. Remember the battle at Ntab' Enzima, which history books as Waterkloof. In that Frontier War, amaXhosa, in the leadership of Maqoma, a chief of amaNgqika and son of Ngqika, routed amaJoni, otherwise know then as the 'Red Devils' then. Today you'll hardly find a single English historian admitting to that. The Zulu Impis did the same at the battle of Isandlwana; the same happened in many of the skirmishes that made for what used to be called Anglo-Boer War, now the South African War.



As I write the English press, ever easily led away by ancient prejudice, are spouting rants of sophisticated ignorance about this or that concerning the game, our players, and our country. Well, you know how the saying used to go: "Nothing doth make havock of mankind as the sons of Albion." Always when involved in anything they want to flourish even to rankness by uniting prejudice and fraud to force, trying to out master the Roman imperialistic mischief. In their outrage I see their weaknesses, polished and published as wounded pride.



In 1994 we made a contract, called a Constitution, which, in the words of Mandela was 'to lead our country out of the valley of darkness." The following year it was cemented by the euphoria of winning the Rugby World cup. The euphoria is back again to assist us with the renewal of our vows. Luckily the majority of us still agree to stand by our contract, the general kind of commitment; a commitment not merely of the will but that must be of deeds also.



We all each have to compromise there and there to further this collective deal. We must divest ourselves from prejudice, paternalism, and worship into the deal the ideal of 'nationhood' as defined by Ortega y Gasset called 'nationhood'. Gasset was of the opinion that we must first get the statehood right. "State begins when man strives to escape from the natural society of which he has been made a member of by blood or any other natural principle like language, race, or ethnicity."



I truly believe this country of ours is destined for glory. Of course there will be prices to pay, like proper differentiation of the burden of our history and overcoming the baggage of attitudes that need to be changed. "A State is," said Gasset, "a superation and cross-breeding of these natural origins." As the young poet (Philip Larkin) saw it; If one can accept the dream / The rest is best forgot.

Swabbing the Deck

There was a time when 'freedom of the press' laid largely on the fact that it was not an industry, but those times are now long gone. The press, as a forth estate, is not only an industry, but foremost a business and striving to be a political force. Perish the idea then that the press is an independent non biased messenger and let's look at issues straightly.

In modern times the press has forged its stance as a counter-medium of dissemination, mostly hostile to government propaganda. In our country this as can be noticed in present Pikoli saga. Regrettably it is prone to exaggeration in reporting, especially when it comes to government short-comings. For instance, the press should have correctly reported the suspension of Vusi Pikoli, the national director of persecution as a suspension, not a dismissal, since the law does not permit the president to suspend the national director of persecution without due Parliamentary process. It is no wonder that Frank Chikane, the director general of the Presidency and Secretary of the Cabinet, accused it of manufacturing a crisis.

Be that as it may, it does not mean all the issues the press raises lend credence to centaurs and satyrs. Personally I agree with the leader of the opposition party, Helen Zille, that Frene Ginwala is not an ideal person to lead the inquiry of the suspension of the national director of persecution. We don't doubt her competence, just her bona fides, considering the fact that she is the member of the National Executive Council, thus too associated with the higher echelons of the ruling party. In the ideal world this would have no bearing on her objectivity, but we don't live in an ideal world.

I also think that, for maintaining the dignity of the office the National Commission of the SA Police Service, Jackie Selebi should at least step down until all the shenanigans that surrounds him are sorted out. For the press to say the whole thing is what Rabelais evoked as inevitable sites of murmur and plot might be spreading it too thickly, but that it is what the press does when not supplied with clear information. Rev Chikane might despise the rattle, or try to disown the gibberish, but providing clear information is the only thing that'll relieve the fatigue of the situation.
On the other hand if the reported allegations against the Sunday Times editor and his deputy of illegally being in possession of the health minister's hospital records are true then the law must take its course. None of us are above the law, and freedom of expression does not excuse anyone from obeying journalistic ethics and the laws of the country. It beats me how that would spell degrading towards the Zimbabwean situation, as some of our media commentators (especially at Johnnic Media—I’m not sure what those guys are smoking), howling on the strength of delusions of their pen, have taken to vacuously saying.
The ideal would be for our journalistic commentary to broaden the perceptions of our collective consciousness into nationhood, instead of invoking people to retreating Lagers that are defined by their respective prejudices. As it is now we're trapped in cloying political leader trashing than proper analysis. Whatever maybe wrong with our president's style of leadership it sometimes seems more is growing wrong with our avuncular self-assured rehearsed imitative arguments. The problem is not that we are underlings, but are iconoclasts bent only on bringing the prominent to dust.

Perhaps what we need now, more than in 1995, is to win the Rugby World Cup to re-inject our sense of national pride. Something that'll embody the conception of social and cultural transformation while giving voice to the true nature of our generation. We need something that will attribute our characteristics and values across racial, social, cultural, and historic timelines on the basis of our common geographical and experiential roots.

It does not mean we need to stop being frank and honest on with each other; whitewashing things is not going to help us. But a change of tone and depth in analyses as opposed to superficial pettiness is desirable. Somehow we've to find ways of rising above our purée of disgust and inherited mistrust for we're starting to sound ludicrous and foolish.

Ghandi once said that "the real struggle that democracy must wage is a struggle within the individual self, between the urge to dominate and defile the other and a willingness to live respectfully on terms of compassion and equality". And Steve Biko was wont to quote Aimé Césaire that no one "possesses the monopoly on truth, intelligence, force and there is room for all of us at the rendezvous of victory." If only.

Saffron Revolution

The only thing that has been keeping us informed about what has been termed the Safron Revolution in the Burma, the Bloggers, is now been silenced. How disgusting and self-defeating. The Burma Junta has seen the capabilities and freedom that comes with people on the ground who have in the past weeks been keeping us informed of what was happening in that country as monks and ordinary people marched on the streets to demand more freedom and democracy in their country. Pity that the country has no coveted natural resources otherwise the elected junta in Washington would have long made a fuss about liberating the Burmese people. Like Mandela, Aung Suu Kyi, shall be free soon, and with her the Burmese. There’s no resisting the will of the people when they stand united. The struggle goes on!

Mbeki vs The Press

South Africa got its political freedom at the time when the era of ideologies came to an end, ushering the politics of personalities and fear. The ANC profited well from the charisma and statue of Nelson Mandela but his departure from the political scene drove it into politics of fear.

Politics of fear are something almost all political parties of significance in South Africa rely on. The DA was built on the foundations of ‘fighting back’ strategies and fear of turning South Africa into another corrupt African State. The fear ANC relies on is that of things going back to the realities of apartheid era. Its current talk of ‘The enemy manoeuvres but it remains the enemy’ trying to offset the gains of ‘National Democratic Revolution’ make the point clear.

To complicate issues in our nascent democracy, there’s has been a rise in careless prattle and untrained clump of words that are the usual consequent of dynamics of free press, which is lifting the lids off the immature ANC government. Instead of taking this trumpeting manifesto as occupational necessity of a free democratic country the ruling party wants to compete with it.

Mallarmé once ironically explained his poem, La nuit approbatrice, to his friend Henri Cazalis by saying; ‘If you murmur it yourself a couple of times, you get a fairly cabbalistic sensation.’ Mostly what the press murmurs gives it cabbalistic sensation they believe to be the splendour of truth.

Unfortunately the cabbalistic sensation has rubbed off into the ruling party, as demonstrated by statements like; ‘Our historical opponents have the task to convince the nation that under our leadership, the democratic revolution has failed. The revolutionary duty of the ANC is not only further to accelerate the process of social transformation, but also to conduct the political and ideological struggle to ensure the cohesion of the masses of our people as a united force engaged in the long march towards the creation of a truly non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous democracy.’ [ANC Today; Volume 7, No. 34 • 31 August—6 September 2007; A silent mood of trepidation?] Talk about wearing the mantle of your purported enemy.

R.S. Roberts’ competent book, ‘Fit to Govern: The Native Intelligence of Thabo Mbeki’ is a clear example of what happens when one allows the need to address the platitudinous tendencies of the media distract you. The book reads more as if its purpose was to prove the impotent shallowness of our media commentators. Even when you achieve this goal, as Roberts has, the victory is pyrrhic. Taking the media too seriously when it violates modesty by heaping spleen and cultivating hysteria against is like squaring circles. It is self-defeating and dancing to their drums.

Impression is a survival skill to the media, more valuable than reflection. It is in the nature of the media to leech in order to inject vitality on its content. Press freedom has, world over, been raised into a political creed. That’s what is meant by the Fourth Estate. The sooner the ANC government realises this the more it’d be better structured to exploit, rather than fight it.

Although political parties are still electoral machines—mostly out of inertia—the times have changed. Political parties have ceased to be issuers of alternative ideas as can be seen by writers and thinkers throwing their lot with broadcasting networks that have acquired industrial and commercial life. In short, money has become the only sinew in the war of airwaves. Hence instead of ideas has come the struggle of images and personalities, the battles of the scoop and the soundbites.

The only way political parties will survive here is by aligning themselves, for tactical reasons, with media communication. That’s what the aesthetically assertive leader of DA, Helen Zille, with her look-at-me style of politics, has learnt very well to do. Instead of huffing and puffing about she milks it, beating the tom-toms of publicity to her advantage.

The press is not only an industry, but now an industry first and foremost. Political journals, like ANC Today, might serve as internal organs for intellectual power struggles, but to capture the attention of the vox populli you need media. Media form bridge between the theory of the vanguard and the spontaneous movement of the class, in Lenin’s idiom.

The ANC needs to stop retreating to bellicose politics and placidly put out into the world why millions keep voting it into government election after election. Despite what the self-appointed fundi of our political scene say about the nostalgia and ignorance of masses who keep voting for the ANC, people know exactly which side their bread is buttered. It is the failure of the ANC technique that it has not translated its democratic legitimacy into sound publicity strategies.

The lesson we all need to relearn, as the bickering starts to show some serious personal misfiring, is that that politics is essentially about maintaining social stability. Transformation is a necessary step for furthering our freedom but none of us have anything to gain from the state of anarchy. It might be that every anarchic situation is the herald of a renaissance, but there are no guarantees, and the price to higher to pay. The gods of apartheid who fled through the front door of our democracy are starting to come back through the backdoor and the windows. It is time to take caution.

Drawing their authority from the sun, like Egyptian Pharoahs, some in the media have lately been at pains trying to convince us that things in our country are falling apart. Most of us do not believe the bagarre in the Tripartite Alliance (ANC, COSATU & SACP) leading to Polokwane means anything more than proper differentiation within the alliance. They’re encouraging signs of democratic change happening, and the necessary beginnings for severance of artificial coalitions that have outlived their usefulness.

We all need to be done with our irrational anger, dishonest evasiveness and greedy opportunism, and admit some few truths to ourselves with the humility they deserve. Like the fact that we are a country emerging from a wounding past, bankrupt of ideas to take us into a non-racial and multicultural future we want to be; instead of trying to be poor ersatz of other systems and countries.

Our media needs to learn sensitivity to complex issues, whose value is to be found in its receptiveness and proper understanding of our past experience. The government, especially our president, needs to open up more, learn not to be emotional against the criticism of their policies and failures; because this is how the country will establish its own reflective consciousness. Only then will we be done of these cabbalistic sensations.No one is saying the battle for hegemony should also sieze.

म्बेकी

The publication of Ronald Suresh Robert’s book Fit To Govern: The Native Intelligence of Thabo Mbeki [FTNI], in South Africa, has been equivalent to the hauling of a boulder into the murky pond of political chattering class. Roberts is no stranger to controversy in South African since his publication of Nadine Gordimer’s biography whose authorisation he was refused at the last hour. Roberts also has recently lost a defamation case against South Africa’s biggest Sunday paper, The Sunday Times.

There were invidious speculations also that the book, FTNI was commissioned by the South African presidency’s office, with ABSA bank made to pay the author a six digit sum for the work. A démenti was issued from the presidential office but the press was not convinced. So the ripples of the book were felt well before the effect of actual publication, all for the wrong reasons.

Roberts has a skill of clear writing, and a gift of insight, required by the strict demands of non fictional work. Regrettably he suffers also from the lawyer’s argumentative personality that makes his writing sometimes digressive. In FTNI he lines up an assemblage of South African self-servers, frauds, political double-dippers, gasbags, charlatans, spoiled reporters and unprincipled academics that make up the vague organism I conveniently call the chattering class. He target practise on them with his accumulated academic counter arguments to reveal their lack of analytic intelligence, and accuse them with what Edward Said would have called their ‘imperial attitude’.

Roberts ruffled a lot of feathers by exposing the stereotypical pretensions of South African political/journalistic commentary ‘who inhabits the imperial attitude’. The kerfuffle of wagging tongues have since been humming and hawing about this or that, as people who live in glass houses are wont to do when stones are thrown back on them. It is not worth the effort of dealing with these personality scoring and intellectual pillow fights. Suffice to say Roberts gives a full measure of ad hominem dose of it in FTIN. These syndicated columnists have since been paying him in kind, revelling and ostracising his name in every newspaper. What they don’t reveal to the public is that FTIN actually is a very good book to read, fraught with argumentation, quotations and on-line footnotes fit to be a thesis, but still a good read.

Quoting the playwright David Hamet’s citing of the book of Ecclesiastes castigates the chattering class’s tendency of denialism of not willing to confront South Africans problems head on. He says the country has fallen on ‘evil times . . . a time in which we do not wish to examine ourselves and our unhappiness’. Roberts blames this denialism in what I’ve, somewhere called the lack and fear of native intelligence. The dearth of commentary in the media, for instance, about president Mbeki’s well constructed recent Steve Biko’s lecture in Cape Town supports this argument.

What is more interesting to me is Robert’s head on confrontation with the most annoying habits of condescension in most South African liberals; their tendency to trim others to fit liberal prejudices, and the failure to recognize their own bigotry. The historian (or should I say pseudo-historian) RW Johnson, gets the brunt of Roberts’ punches in this case. Hellen Suzman and Tony Leon do not escape either. The majority of South African liberals, of cause, need to disabuse themselves of notions like ‘relaxed acceptance of things that are crazy, macabre, or wildly alarming is very African’ as written by Johnson in 1996.

It would have been more interesting and ideal had Roberts felt obliged to tackle the hierarchal mentality inside the ANC [African National Congress] also, which is clearly antithetical to democracy for lack of vitality if nothing else. ‘Instead of a soul-searching enigma-breaking biography, this book is a displacement of certain fictions—an engagement with many of the myths and invidious discourses that have pilled themselves high around Mbeki, as around the numerous native leaders of the anti-colonial past. Rather than producing a nice life story of the cradle-to-grave sort, I want to highlight and contest existing accretions of false impression—both about the ANC and about Thabo Mbeki.’ And that to the parlance of South African media makes Roberts a praise singer and FTIN an unworthy hagiography. Fuck them! I’ve seen only one review of the book, in the Mail and Guardian by Vicki Robinson, that approaches anything near to positive.

Tis’ true that more openness and uninhibited debate about national issues is needed within the ANC echelons where receptiveness and towing the line is valued more highly than individual perception. Robert in his book had an opportunity of expanding the platform of dissenting freedom within the party. Also of touching on the issue of class politics within the ANC that are now spawning a gleaming nest of worms on the road to the ANC’s 52nd National Conference in December where a leader of the ANC would be elected.

Robert’s book also has very little to say about the majority of poor South Africans who have been left behind by present economic growth who has now become restive as seen recently burning and looting in basic service political demonstrations against township municipalities. Of course every book is by necessity limited in its scope by its thesis, but one would have expected a discourse about Mbeki’s fitness to govern to go into depth into the situation of the majority of those he governs, especially seeing that they are presently disgruntled.

The real problem, perhaps, with the book FTIN is that it is told ex parte of the governing party, or rather of Thabo Mbeki, who some feel is bent to be the only one playing dauphin in the hegemony of the ANC. It must also be a limiting factor for Robert, as an expat from Trinidad, to have to rely solely on written word and media reporting to gauge the mood and Weltanschauung of South African vox populi. Which perhaps is why he decided not to venture too much in that direction.

To be fair, Roberts does compare the South African situation well with other emerging similar markets, like Brazil, and comes out convinced that the South African government does more in its GDP spending on the poor than the rest. But, in my book, it could do more and quicker if it were not too obsessed with fiscal health as defined by the Washington Consensus. In an era when those who are at the loosing hand of globalization are resorting to aggressive militant tactics against the prevailing capitalist status quo not to talk about it seems like a regrettable missed opportunity to me.

The major South African press has been trying their best to discourage people from reading the book on pretext that Roberts is nothing more than an intellectual manqué who recycles old squabbles and plagiarizes witticisms. Some go as far as to call the book a waste of intellectual energy. That, in my opinion, is a gross misrepresentation. In fact I feel a book like this has long been coming in South African debating scene. Most of those who are hurt by it have reasons to be because Roberts does pull some heavy punches in attacking the mediated kitsch of rococo coffee-shop intellectualists who’ve appointed themselves avant-gardes of South African Zeitgeist.

The problem with most South African commentators is that they think wearing a badge of dissent is a sign of substance and enlightenment. They do not even research things they want to discuss, only relying on instant occidental skulduggery for their commentary. Most have little to show beyond afflictions of self-aggrandizements and gross careerism that are called freedom of conscience in these ‘evil times’. Roberts does a commendable job puncturing and putting out a little wind out of their sails.

To say, for instance, that Roberts’ effort on the book was a waste of intellectual effort is to deny facts he’s stating without engaging them. To deny facts without material counter argument is banality; and that is wide spread in the petting circles of South African chattering class who are fast making themselves into a waste of public space and amplification of foolishness that has become vulgar through its gain of cheap confidence.

The adolescent intellectual pillow fighting of our press Roberts engages would be a shame if it was not for the fact that media is highly regarded by the vox populi who regards its opinion as the first base for popular sentiment. By blunting the cloying imputations of the narcissist culture in our chattering class Roberts compels the reader to ask what drives popular press. Cui bono? Who stands to benefit?

Roberts has his flaws also, in the book, like too much slapstick leeriness; spluttering bile and occasional tendentious rants when disgusted by the subject he discusses. Indeed one gets the feeling that Roberts takes too seriously the paladins of newspaper syndicated pet tics whose goal, some of us have learned, is to survive their publicity budgets.

The book does get sketchy in narrative flow, betraying its eclectic assembly of journalistic topics. What are wonderful are facts of interpretations Roberts brings to these and the background of president Mbeki’s speeches. That will surprise even a reader who has been an avid reader of what’s been happening in South Africa in the past few years. Roberts in FTIN intellectualises our history since the coming of Mbeki to presidential seat with peppering from traditional historical similarities, especially from Xhosas Frontier epoch.

I can imagine those without much intellectual foundation of political philosophy getting easily discouraged in trying to follow Robert’s arguments that are fraught with learned references to David Hume, Frantz Fanon, and so forth. But political philosophy is central in considerations of good or just society, so they just will have to tear their hair, gnash their teeth and wring their hands, because in the end it would be worth their effort.

Whatever shortcomings Roberts have, a vapid writer he is not, which is quite refreshing from the recycled fodder of intellectual pretensions we tend to be fed on in South African political analysis. The South African debating platform will be indebted to him for opening up space partitioned by superficial commentary. For debunking intellectual bankruptcy and raiding intellectual black holes that have long been promoted by the hue of our journalistic cliques. That he did not extend this space to the haunts of the ANC is regrettably, and betrays his intellectual objectivity.

Even if Roberts’ book does little more than shake up the establishment of gate-keepers (as it is already doing) in our press and political echelons of liberal circles it would have achieved a lot. Nothing will convince one about the merits or demerits of To Govern: The Native Intelligence of Thabo Mbeki short of actually reading it for one self. The significance of Roberts’ arguments depends on which side of the fence you stand. The book is aesthetically appealing, intellectual fulfilling, politically expounding, but limited as a window to South African economic realities.