Is South Africa a society that throws its children down the toilet?

pit latrines (2)

Is a toilet too much to ask? In numerous schools in South Africa, toilet facilities for the children are either missing or dangerous. It is a priority that has been neglected in the basic school system for decades, both under the ANC and previous governments. Accidents are inevitable. The picture shows a rudimentary pit toilet at a rural school.

THE horrendous death of a five year old schoolgirl, Lumka Mketwa, who fell into a pit latrine at an Eastern Cape school last week and drowned in human faeces, and whose body lay there overnight before being found, highlights a stark reality of South African society. This is the chasm between the high quality first-world bubble in which the South African elite – including middle class blacks, whites and most Jews – live, compared to the millions of desperately poor, who don’t even have a proper toilet. It is not the first such incident: In 2014, five year old schoolboy Michael Komape fell into a dilapidated pit latrine at his Limpopo school and died.

It will likely happen again. Thousands of children attend schools with filthy, dangerous toilets. A reliable report in January said 37 Eastern Cape schools had no toilets at all, 1945 had plain pit latrines and 2585 had ventilated pit latrines. How can children and their parents function with optimism under such circumstances?

Contrast this with white schools in the city – whether Christian, Jewish or other properly organised, comparable schools, where the absence of good toilets is unimaginable, let alone other essentials such as adequate school buildings, desks and so on.

Which of the two examples above adequately describes the country South Africa – the abysmal poverty of Lumka’s world, or the relative wealth of the Jewish or Catholic child’s world?

How would other countries answer a similar question? In an attempt to get a handle on this, a report released on March 14 compares the ‘happiness level’ of various countries, evaluated by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network for the United Nations. It takes data from 156 countries, ranking them in terms of six variables that support a person’s well-being. These are: income, freedom, trust, healthy life expectancy, social support and generosity.

It found that the top countries included Denmark, Switzerland, Norway and Finland. The most unhappy countries were Burundi, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Tanzania and Yemen.

South Africa is not regarded as a particularly happy society. It ranks two thirds down the list, at 105. Obviously, within the SA elite’s first-world bubble which has access to health care, resources, community, charities and so on, the ranking would be far higher, probably closer to Germany. But the poverty of the masses brings it down. The pathetic beggars motorists encounter at city street lights are the tip of the iceberg.

How much credibility do such studies have? Mark Twain popularised a term in the United States: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Undoubtedly, some indicators cannot be precisely measured for a report like this, but it nevertheless gives a broad overview.

The notion of comparing different countries’ well-being came from the prime minister of Bhutan in 2011. In 2012 the UN General Assembly declared March 20 as World Happiness Day, recognising “the relevance of happiness and well-being as universal goals and aspirations… and the importance of their recognition in public policy objectives.” The idea may seem a little woolly to some, but it has taken root in government policy in certain places.

Israel was ranked a respectable eleventh in well-being, one notch below Australia, and firmly above Germany and the United States, at 15 and 18 respectively – an interesting finding, given Israel’s stress because of threats against it. Clearly, Israelis are relatively happy.

The Palestinian territories, in contrast, rank much lower than Israel, at 104, which should worry those concerned about relations between them.

Can South Africa’s ranking rise in the foreseeable future, so another Lumka Mketwa will not die? It is now 24 years since apartheid ended, and SA President Cyril Ramaphosa expressed shock at her death and ordered urgent action to give all schools proper toilets. But heads must roll in this country, quickly and totally, and not just about toilets.

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )

Advertisements

Messy business of Jews, their roots and land

hilbrow 2

Hillbrow: Crime spot or wellspring of creative energy? This cosmopolitan, black Johannesburg neighbourhood is a no-go land for many whites, who fear it, although they once owned it. Now, white land ownership is coming under political scrutiny, as blacks demand the return of what colonialists ‘stole’ from them centuries ago

JOHANNESBURG northern suburbs Jews and other whites generally fear going to Hillbrow, believing they’ll be mugged. But anyone attending the Hillbrow Theatre – previously the historic Andre Huguenot theatre – last weekend to see the show Hillbrowification staged as part of the Dance Umbrella Festival, might have been impressed by a neighbourhood abuzz with pulsating street life amid Art Deco buildings, and the cosmopolitan mix of black immigrants and local black people. Undoubtedly problems of poverty and crime exist, but the energy is infectious.

Adult Jews remember a largely white Hillbrow in the 1960-70s which hummed elegantly with shops and cafes like the popular Fontana, and buildings such as Highpoint in which the first Exclusive Books was born. For residents, Hillbrow was a first step up for many poor Jewish immigrants from Lithuania who had started off in the humble Doornfontein neighbourhood to the south.

Few, if any, Jews remain in Hillbrow today. They sold up and moved north to the more suburban areas of Orange Grove, Sydenham and Highlands North.

That move was organic, driven by personal decisions and aspirations to own better properties. But this may change with the radical possibility threatening white property owners today, as the black EFF party wants government to seize white-owned property without payment, claiming it was stolen from South Africa’s original black inhabitants by white colonialists. An EFF motion in Parliament last month to review the Constitution to allow ‘expropriation without compensation’ (EWC) was supported by the ANC.

Rural land in Jewish hands today is small, compared to the 1960s when there were a multitude of Jewish farms; for example, the 30-mile strip between Ogies and Leslie in Mpumalanga was almost entirely Jewish farmland. Today, the effects of Jews losing properties would be felt mainly in cities.

The argument is often made that Jewish South Africans’ success in this country, whether in property ownership, business or elsewhere is not because they lived in a country that legally discriminated against blacks and favoured whites. Rather, they worked extremely hard throughout their lives and deserve what they achieved – including property they own – and they shouldn’t have to pay for what colonialists did centuries ago. Many will say Jews are inherently industrious and creative, and succeeded in whichever country they emigrated to from Eastern Europe, whatever the circumstances.

There may be some truth in that, but land is an emotive issue and the argument won’t satisfy black people who believe it was stolen from them. What’s to be done? President Cyril Ramaphosa says it needs careful consideration and there will be no ‘smash and grab’ – such as the Zimbabwean catastrophe, with rampant seizure of white farms.

The issue is complex, whether you support EWC or reject it. From whom should land be taken, and to whom it should it be given? For example, there are whites whose forebears arrived here in the 19th century and who are fifth generation South Africans. Must they still pay for what the colonialists did, as if they are not South African?

Furthermore, to whom should land be given? Which people qualify as ‘original’ South Africans from whom the colonialists stole land? South African history is replete with events where one group took land from another. Perhaps the only genuinely original inhabitants were the San – the so-called ‘Bushmen’ who are virtually extinct today?

What no-one can dispute is the need for major land reform. In a country with a majority black population, ownership of most land by whites is both immoral and a recipe for disaster. What does this have to do with Hillbrow? It is still a metaphor for the country, a reservoir of pulsating energy bordered by land largely owned or controlled by the privileged. Imagine if the pent-up energy crammed into those few blocks was released into bringing life to new places.

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )

 

The leadership quandary: Trust me, I’ll make your nightmares real

MAEMA CUTTING THROAT

What kind of leaders does the world and South Africa need? As the international scenario heats up with bellicose posturing by powerful politicians, the morality of leadership takes a knock. In post-apartheid South Africa, racial tensions still fume as politicians use them for their gain. In the picture, the anti-white leader of the EFF party Julius Malema explodes in an outburst

WHAT makes a leader? Morality, humility, wisdom? The question becomes increasingly relevant as the planet seems to be hurtling towards potential self-destruction. Ordinary people watch fearfully as international leaders threaten stability in ways not seen since the Cold War. For us in South Africa, the country seems rudderless, lacking any true national leader.

Authentic leadership goes deeper than having a clean record. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long been under police investigation for corruption, yet most Israelis still regard him as best choice for prime minister and vote for him, because no-one else in the political landscape seems able to ensure Israel’s security.

Israelis are anyway cynical about political leaders’ morality: President Moshe Katsav was jailed for rape in 2011; Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was jailed for corruption a few years later; and Shas leader and cabinet minister Aryeh Deri was jailed in 1999 for bribery and breach of trust.

Ironically, one of Israel’s most outstanding leaders was an ardent right-winger, former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who led the Likud to electoral victory in 1977 after three decades of Labour Party dominance. He was initially reviled by the left, but today is admired as a role model by people across the spectrum for common sense and propriety. He is the leader who made peace between Israel and Egypt with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, with whom he received the 1978 Nobel Prize for Peace.

In America, President Donald Trump’s chaotic tenure in the White House and irrational tendency to change positions on major local and international issues, continues eroding confidence among Americans who believe he is unfit for the job, and creates disdain elsewhere. But he sits in the power seat and could lead the world into a hell from which it would take forever to recover.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin belligerently brags about the ability of his country’s nuclear weaponry to reach targets anywhere, particularly the United States, terrifying people who fear another nuclear arms race.

What about South African leaders? Obviously the historical giant amongst them was struggle icon and former President Nelson Mandela. He is history now, although the memory of his vision lives on, disappointed as the citizens may be at his country’s decline.

And the others? President Cyril Ramaphosa has yet to prove himself; many people believe the task of reconstructing South Africa is too big for him. He succeeded in removing the poisonous President Jacob Zuma from office, but not yet the rot Zuma created.

On a much smaller, charismatic scale, we have Julius Malema. It may seem ludicrous to include him in a descriptive list containing the likes of Putin and Trump, but we are talking qualities not scale. One may not like his politics, but he makes enough noise on the national and even international stage to be noticed by people interested in South Africa. Whether his leadership brand will produce anything positive is unlikely because of his toxic anti-white racism, epitomised by his latest statement, “We are cutting the throat of whiteness,” referring to plans to remove Nelson Mandela Bay mayor Athol Trollip because he is white.

Sounds familiar? It is little different from apartheid leaders HF Verwoerd and PW Botha, whose target was blacks not whites.

Does a leader have to want the best for his people? Not necessarily. Hitler, as repulsive as he was, inspired Germans to move mountains, even if they were in the most depraved direction and eventually brought catastrophe down on them.

South Africa’s record on leaders is not a good one. Are there any potential Mandelas or Hitlers waiting in the wings? This country has a tendency towards great drama, and must beware of the likes of Malema, whose anti-white slogans could easily morph into anti-Indian, anti-Muslim or anti-Jew.

(GEOFF SIFRIN is a journalist in Johannesburg, South Africa, and former Editor of the SA Jewish Report. Email:  geoffs@icon.co.za )