South Africa: A fading rainbow?

Democracy is not an easy thing to do. It is not something that can be implemented over night nor does the ability to vote mean that things will immediately turn out for the better. For democracy to work, institutions need to be in place and civil society must work together to grow something organically.

Notions of idealism have often ignored the fundamentals of rationalism and pragmatism. In effect, just because something may seem right, it doesn’t mean it is going to work. To a large extent, this forms the building blocks of modern Conservatism and many of the views of the 18^th century politician Edmund Burke. Societies don’t become something overnight, they evolve through history and culture. The lessons of revolution and visionary leaders have often led to mass murder and the brutality of totalitarian regimes.

The problem with democracy is that when it is in place, citizens expect results immediately. Yet, when things don’t, old habits often die hard. One only has to look at Russia. Western critics of the current Russian leadership may have some salient points regarding Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian style, yet let us remember that democracy as we know it has never existed there at all. Before Stalin and Lenin, Russia was ruled by hereditary Tsars. Authoritarianism and the security blanket of socialism are the systems that Russians know; it may be some time before the framework of democracy beds-in.

(NY Times)

The same can be said of South Africa. The pressure for the country to flourish remains intense, almost on the verge of burdensome. The peaceful legacy of Nelson Mandela’s leadership was a platform for countries overcoming long legacies of discrimination to aspire to, any step backward is deemed a desecration of Mandela’s legacy.

The current crisis involving the South Africa questions not only the stability of the economy, but the essence of its democracy. The shooting and subsequent killings of protesting miners at a platinum mine near Rustenburg asks not only questions of the police, but questions about politics and society.

Since 16 August, South Africa’s platinum mines have become inoperable. Mass demonstrations by several unions have prevented workers returning to the pits and have put future operations in doubt. The protests have continued to gain momentum and not just in Rustenburg, miners from across the country have joined in wild-cat strikes. The return of the banished former ANC Youth Leader Julius Malema has only stoked the fire further.

Malema is no stranger to controversy. A fierce critic of South Africa’s current leadership, Malema has openly stated his admiration and friendship of Zimbabwe’s ageing tyrant Robert Mugabe, discredited the Government of Botswana and called for the South African mining sector to be renationalised. The 31-year-old raised headlines initially for singing the infamous ‘Shoot the Boer’ at ANC rallies, Boer being the white farmers who settled in South Africa in the 17^th and 18^th century, now a looser term for white South Africans. In April 2012, Malema was finally banned for calling President Zuma a dictator. Yet, it does not appear to have curtailed his opinions. Malema this week was talking to the South African army, in what has been perceived as a threat to national security.

Malema's speeches draw in the masses (Guardian)

Whilst Malema’s rhetoric can be deemed as absurd and opportunistic, to what extent does it echo with many of the workers in South Africa’s mining community? Since the end of Apartheid, are they materially better off? Life expectancy has dropped to 52 years old, over a tenth of the population is living with HIV, on top of poor educational standards, crime remains an inherent problem with high murder and violent crime rates. Figures also put the unemployment rate at 25%, though many believe it to be around 40%. Has freedom from Apartheid brought opportunity? For the masses living in black townships, how many would argue that much has changed?

Whilst many poor black South Africans have suffered, the political elite have prospered. 100 years since the ANC was born, to what extent does it really represent its constituents? Why has it introduced a secrecy law that critics believe to be akin to Apartheid-era politics. Why were the miners in Rustenburg arrested under an obscure Apartheid law?

South Africa has struggled like any country whilst it attempted to re-emerge from its bleak past. South Africa is held up as a beacon because what was enshrined in its constitution made it the world’s most equal society. Yet the strikes and gaps in wealth tell another story. A new black elite has managed to develop from the seeds of freedom. From what should have been an opportunity for liberation and new beginnings has led to greed, corruption and a failure of the masses. Whilst the miners may return to work this week, what remains is a seriously inequal society and the fault lines that will only become wider.

ANC: 100 years - Living on history itself.

As world leaders and activists gather in Bloemfontein to celebrate the centenary of the African National Congress Party (ANC) it should provide an opportunity for all onlookers and participants to reflect and rejoice. The internal struggles against the Apartheid Government that eventually forced the world to act should be something that we must never forget. White rule saw coloured and black people subjugated, withheld basic economic and human rights. Anyone who tried to undermine the regime was brutally repressed. The ANC openly challenged the Apartheid system, providing legal help for defendants against a bias judiciary and organising strikes and boycotts. Banned by the Government following the Sharpeville Massacre in 1960, where 69 protestors were killed after police opened fire, it continued to operate in secret. Working across the border in neighbouring Angola and Mozambique, it planned and launched sabotage attacks against factories, mines and communications with an aim to disrupt the day-to-day working of the country. Many of its activists were incarcerated, most notably Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu, whilst others were fleeing abroad to push the intellectual message to an international audience. The ANC had become the world’s moral upright party, it was a cause that touched people’s conscience and believed it was time to act.

The release of Nelson Mandela from prison and his subsequent election as the first black leader of South Africa saw the rebirth of the country and an avenue of hope for millions of ordinary South Africans. Perhaps his greatest legacy was standing down after one term in 1999, allowing democracy to flourish after 50 years of insubordination. So does the party really stop there?

Since the man they call ‘Madiba’ stood down there has been greater scrutiny to how the country operates. His successors Thabo Mbeki and the current President Jacob Zuma have both been criticised as the party’s political practices have been questioned and a new ruling elite have emerged. Instead of the demands and transition to a fairer and more equal society, vast amounts of wealth have exchanged into ANC associated hands. In 1999 instances of widespread corruption were uncovered after the procurement of $4.8 billion of defence contracts with European defence manufacturers. Mbeki played down the HIV/AIDS epidemic across the country and Zuma said that showering after intercourse was a way of prevention. Mbeki was accused by human rights groups for turning a blind eye to atrocities being committed across the border by the Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe. Zuma’s leadership has been dogged by inter-party conflict led by the former youth league leader Julius Malema and the recent passing of a secrecy bill that forbids whistle blowing and investigative journalism against the national government. Both men played their part in the early struggles, yet both have continued to present the past as their ticket to the future. 17 years of power has not served well a new generation; millions of blacks still live in townships, almost 8.7 million live on less than a $1.25 a day, not to mention the high unemployment and violent crime rates. Both Mbeki and Zuma have made promises that remain unfulfilled.

Electorally the ANC continues to win votes from the Apartheid-era electorate, yet the population with a median age of 25, less aware of the past and uncertain of their future is turning to the electorally viable Democratic Alliance party, led by Helen Zille and significantly, Mamphela Ramphele, a fierce ANC critic and partner of the late Apartheid era hero, Steve Biko. The centenary should be an opportunity to remember the likes of Mandela, Sisulu, Tutu, Tambo and all others in the struggle, but we should remember those who have continued that have been left behind by the malaise of the ANC administration.

So I sing a song of hate, Julius Malema

African political leaders have always had a difficult ride from the foreign press during their time in office. Whether it is their links to corruption, war or ineptitude then many leaders are tarred with the same brush. Last month candidate Michael Sata defeated incumbent Rupiah Banda to become Zambia’s new President, yet much of the foreign attention focussed on the fact that there had been no ethnic violence, electoral fraud or a reluctance to stand down, like we saw in Cote d’Ivoire last November. The beacon for African democracy to flourish through Western eyes is seen through the South African lens. After the years of Apartheid and South Africa’s isolation internationally to the freedom of Nelson Mandela, the rainbow nation, is the litmus paper to whether democracy is working on the continent. Yet, the man who steals all the headlines is not the current President Jacob Zuma, it is the firebrand leader of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) Julius Malema.

Malema a pugnacious and part of South Africa’s black ‘nouveau riche’ has gained attention for his virulent views and standpoints on politics and economics. When Malema first hit the scene, what was noticeable was his poor use of the English language, yet his ability to court controversy has made him infamous. Malema has demanded that private enterprise particularly the mining sector be confiscated and nationalised. He believes that the sizeable white minority of South Africans still control far too much of the land and this should be handed back to the poor black population, by force if necessary. At ANC rallies, he famously sang the Apartheid song ‘Shoot the Boer’, Boer being a reference to the non-indigenous white settlers, something that has seen him reprimanded for by the police and the legal system.

Approaching 100,000 followers on Twitter, he has been able to maximise his exposure to the international press, and again for the wrong reasons. In 2010, he criticised a BBC journalist Jonah Fisher after he had questioned Malema’s wealthy background and was subsequently expelled from the press conference. He has criticised the role of Chinese entrepreneurs in South Africa, and last month has said that the Botswana government should be overthrown (though no one is quite sure why). In 2010 he met Zimbabwe’s ageing tyrant Robert Mugabe and backed the land reforms that Mr Mugabe’s ZANU PF implemented in 2000, which crippled the Zimbabwean economy, he also called the opposition MDC party and its leader Morgan Tsvangirai imperialists.

For a long time, Jacob Zuma did not criticise the activities of Malema and the youth wing of the ANC. In fact, Malema told Zuma that he would ‘kill’ to ensure that he was elected as President, yet since then relations have become frostier. Zuma reprimanded Malema for many of his public comments and in return, Malema has become critical of Zuma in public, for example he did not like him backing the NATO campaign in Libya. Today, it will be decided whether Malema faces expulsion from the ANC as a whole. Many point out that Malema is insignificant and that the biggest issue for South Africa is its flagging economy and chronic corruption. Yet, for South Africa, after decades of struggle, the possibility of race becoming an issue does not bode well. The murder of the far-right leader Eugene Terreblanche in 2010 reopened some wounds that the country hoped had closed in the early 1990s. What is more concerning is that Genocide Watch, a Washington based organisation, has highlighted the dangers of Malema’s speeches and the fact the ANC has failed to remove him as leader of the ANCYL. It says that the country is at Stage 6 – preparation, stage 7 is genocide. It says, ‘Xenophobic riots and murders of foreign refugees as well as continuing hate crimes against Boer farmers and other whites have caused dark clouds to form over the rainbow nation’. Malema has been quoted as ‘Africa’s biggest racist’ and we shall see whether he can be stopped.

Jacob's games.

It has been a busy summer of sport, yet notoriously quiet on the footballing front. Few high profile transfers and the only events taking place are the Women’s World Cup, which frankly does not draw the same audience as the men’s game and the Copa America, which is locked away on ESPN. A year has passed since the World Cup was played in South Africa, where Spain went on to become the champions after a fierce final against the Dutch. So, is this a good time to judge the legacy of Africa’s first finals and what will the consequences be for the Rainbow Nation?

The recent history of South Africa is fascinating to observe from the outside. After spending decades in the international wilderness through its racial Apartheid laws, it was under the leadership of Nelson Mandela who governed South Africa through a period of uncertainty and united a nation that had been living with the consequences of racial segregation laws since 1948. Mandela recognised the importance of sport in bringing people together and its significance in the public imagination. In Mandela’s memoirs there are plenty of references to sport whilst he was incarcerated on Robben Island, perhaps most famously his love affair for the great tennis rivalry of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Mandela famously handed over the William Webb-Ellis trophy to Francois Pienaar after South Africa beat New Zealand in the 1995 Rugby Union World Cup final.

This was not the last tournament the country was to host; South Africa hosted the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2003 and also held the Indian Premier League in 2009 after security fears in India from the Mumbai bombings. South Africa has a proud history of cricket and rugby and inevitably, these tournaments do not expect hundreds of thousands of fans from around the world to visit. South Africa’s opportunity to host football’s biggest event was twofold. One, FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a fan of expanding the game into new areas of the world and the unifying qualities it brings, which a rebranded country like South Africa would love. Secondly, Blatter owed FIFA’s African delegation a favour as their bloc vote helped him become FIFA President.

Politically South Africa has changed since the early years of Mandela rule. Now under the Presidency of Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) party is struggling in the polls and has an identity crisis. No longer is it seen as the unifying party, but is swarming with a new breed of young black politicians, most notoriously Julius Malema, who are more interested in business and patronage, rather than welfare and equality. Last month saw the ANC lose control of Cape Town in regional elections. Many say it is no longer a party of the people and prefers to look after its own elite.

Football is very much a black person’s game in South Africa. The ranks of its cricket and rugby sides are swarming with white stars, despite the constitutional laws of positive discrimination that ensure that teams are not full of certain races. A World Cup in South Africa was a political statement not just to the world, but to black South Africans as well.

Yet, costs to host the tournament spiralled and supposedly reached $3.5 billion dollars, more than three times more than original predictions. Many cities such as Cape Town and Durban are left with stadia that remain empty. Port Elizabeth has yet to host another match since the ending of last year’s tournament. South African club teams are reluctant to relocate because of the extortionate rental fees (Ajax Cape Town were quoted $100,000 a game despite attendances reaching fewer than 8,000) and inevitably a weaker Rand has meant going to watch football is more expensive. It is true that in Portugal and South Korea, stadia were demolished after they held tournaments, but in a country where 50% of people live under the poverty line, where basic educational, health and welfare are every day issues, it does seem like a waste of money. Crime is a notorious issue in its cities, yet the federal Government struggled to pay the wages of its police force.

FIFA likes to acknowledge the good that football can bring, but it is at an exceptional cost. Legacy is an important thing to consider and many deemed the tournament to be a great success, but for the average black South African living in a township, how much did it cost their future?