Who really is the Son of the Soil?

eff removed from parlieamtn (2)

Get out of my Parliament! Security personnel (in white) remove EFF MPs from Parliament in Cape Town during the State of the Nation Address on February 09, 2017. The EFF members fought back with violence and insults after disrupting proceedings for nearly an hour during former president Jacob Zuma’s address. (photo Esa Alexander)

AN ALIEN from Mars landing in Johannesburg would see many smiling posters from political parties fixed to street poles, and think everyone is so polite, despite the tough battle going on for peoples’ votes in the upcoming election.

Everywhere, you see bakkies with enthusiastic youngsters jumping out to affix posters of Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema, in his characteristic red beret, smiling amiably, with the words ‘Son of the Soil’. The message: If this honest young man found a million dollars on the street, he would search for the owner, and not keep a cent. The country would be safe in his hands.

However, any follower of South African politics knows his other face: He is feared for his aggressiveness and regarded as a potential fascist; he and his unruly comrades have been thrown out of parliament for disruptions, been accused of assaulting a journalist, fired live rounds illegally at the EFF’s anniversary, and constantly used derogatory anti-white racial language. Nervous whites say the country is doomed if he gets significant power.

In his posters Malema does what all politicians do: project a positive image of himself and a negative one of his opponents. An old adage says the most successful political leader is not the most honest one, but the best liar, who can convince millions to follow him. Honest politicians get relegated to the sidelines. History is littered with dishonest leaders sending thousands of soldiers into futile battles.

In the internet era, it’s not just physical posters on street poles that manipulate potential voters; Twitter and Facebook are ideal. At the highest level, US President Donald Trump unashamedly uses Twitter like a street poster to broadcast positive or negative messages. Other international politicians do the same, regardless of their positions, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. On Monday – a week before the Israeli elections – Ynet in Tel Aviv reported on a synchronized system of Facebook and Twitter accounts that has been discovered by internet watchdog, the Big Bots Project, employed for the purpose of praising Netanyahu and discrediting his opponents. Netanyahu denied involvement in it.

In South Africa, digital placards are less used because the population is less internet-savvy. But in the more prosaic, physical poster-war on street poles in Johannesburg, dreary-looking images of African National Congress leader, President Cyril Ramaphosa, call out: “Let’s grow South Africa together!” The message: We are the hundred-year old ANC, the older sons of the soil, who destroyed apartheid and will lead South Africa to prosperity. For the election, the ANC is relying on the notion that even if it is stained by corruption today, most South Africans will vote for it, believing it is not the ANC that is corrupt, but certain individuals, who will be rooted out.

In other places, posters of others parties dominate, such as the Democratic Alliance and Freedom Front Plus. Amongst minorities, the Jewish vote is so small as to be almost irrelevant.

Everyone knows Ramaphosa’s hold on power is precarious, because the old guard of former president Jacob Zuma’s supporters are waiting to stab him in the back. The reassurances his posters are meant to convey are tenuous. Malema’s posters are slightly more effective: The man is actually in charge of his party. If the EFF was not racist, some whites might even vote for it.

All things considered, it might be best for the country if the tired ANC collapsed and was rebuilt from scratch without the rogues who ruined it. Is this possible? For a start, South African voters would have to put their votes elsewhere to convey the message.

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

Advertisements

We, the dispossessed

 

d 6 5 (2).jpg

Why bring your bulldozers to my home? In 1966 the apartheid government declared District Six in Cape Town to be a whites only area and began the process of demolishing it and moving the ‘non- white’ residents out of there to the Cape Flats, against ongoing protests. By 1982 some 60,000 people had been moved.  In the picture, residents try to clean up after the demolition. Now, these people and their descendants are lodging claims for what they lost

THERE was a reminder of apartheid’s madness on 11 February. Five hundred former residents and families of District Six in Cape Town – proclaimed a “whites only” area in 1966 and demolished according to the Group Areas Act – gathered at the Castle of Good Hope for a memorial.

It had been a vibrant, multicultural, multiracial community in the city centre where all sorts of people lived peacefully together until being forcibly relocated to places on the Cape Flats. By 1982, more than 60 000 people had been moved.

Another reminder of this country’s tortured history took place on Saturday, when President Cyril Ramaphosa handed over title deeds to the Griqua and Khoi communities of Ebenhaeser on the West Coast. Their century-old claim was the first to be finalised by the government after their removal from farms in the 1920s. The returned land will see local communities partnering with established commercial farmers in wine, livestock and game farming on 53 farms comprising 1 566 hectares of land.

The Land Claims Court dealt with the District Six claims. A total of 2 760 land claims from former residents were lodged and verified by 31 December 1998. Of these, 1 449 people opted for financial compensation while the rest opted to return to District Six. The situation ignited political wrangles, and there were other delays. But between 2004 and 2018, 139 housing units were built within the area for claimants.

These two instances are the tip of the iceberg of what needs to happen for this country to heal. Ramaphosa has cautioned whites, in measured tones, to stop frustrating land reform. However it’s often more perception than reality, since the court has dealt successfully with more claims than most people realise. Reportedly, between 1995 and 2014, 1.8 million people who applied for compensation received money. Out of 80 000 claims, about 77 000 cases were resolved.

Radical people are pushing Ramaphosa into more radical positions regarding land ownership for political expediency. Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema, and Black First Land First leader Andile Mngxitama have accumulated political ammunition, and pushed to enable expropriation without compensation, which would be a disaster for the country’s economy. But Malema’s appeal to young black people is obvious, through stories of grandparents and parents being thrown off their land, and left with nothing.

History cannot be undone, but the above gestures are important. The most dangerous time in a country’s life is when citizens are so confused that all they want is a strong leader to bring order. The trouble is, often the leader who arrives wants more than anything to be in charge, and becomes a dictator rather than a saviour.  Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, for example, to say nothing of Hitler. Ultimately, the land issue has to be faced with hard data, and it is up to the major political parties to convince the country of the hard data. District Six can be a touchstone.

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

Playing to seekers of excellence, African and European

mozart fest

Can Africans call Mozart one of their own? The flourishing of European classical music in South Africa, which still struggles to clarify its African identity, poses challenges to both its European and African roots. In the picture, the Johannesburg International Mozart Festival brings in capacity audiences, mostly white, at Johannesburg’s Linder auditorium

IS EUROCENTRICITY still a proverbial four-letter word in today’s South Africa? After the coming of democracy in 1994 there was political and social pressure to be more Afrocentric, to counter eons of brutal white and colonial rule that had emanated from Europe and persecuted Africa’s people.

But the society has matured and become less threatened by different ways people may identify themselves, whether ‘African’, ‘European’ or something in between.

Anyone parachuting into the huge Linder Auditorium on Wits university campus on Saturday to hear Italian pianist Mariangela Vacatello perform works by European composers including Mozart, might have thought it was a wholly European event. The 1,000 seat-plus auditorium was packed to the rafters, but noticeable was that the audience was almost exclusively middle-aged and white: hardly a black face was to be seen aside from waiters serving in the restaurant. Superficially, it looked like the 1960s, when apartheid was alive.

Of course, in those days there was a curfew for black people in white areas and they could not have attended. They had to keep to places such as Soweto, and carry a ‘pass’ signed by their white employer, to be in a white area.

Saturday’s performance left the audience breathless and demanding more. After a standing ovation Vacatello gave several encores, the last ending with Mozart’s lively Rondo alla Turca, with a jazz beat. She had come to South Africa under the auspices of the Johannesburg Musical Society, a more-than 100-year old institution currently managed by Avril Rubenstein, in partnership with Richard Cock’s Johannesburg International Mozart Festival (JIMF).

On Sunday, the Linder, which has, over the years, been host to significant luminaries such as Pinchas Zuckerman, saw a grand performance of the Mozart Requiem by the Johannesburg Festival Orchestra and the Symphony Choir of Johannesburg, programmed by JIMF and conducted by Richard Cock. There was not an empty seat and again, an almost exclusively white audience. They were there not because they were white, or because Mozart was European, but because that was the kind of music they love.

The dichotomy seems crude. And it is. There are many black lovers of European classical music in this country, as there is a growing interest in opera by black practitioners. But overwhelmingly, there is disproportion in audiences such as that of the Mozart Festival.

Does the skewed make-up of audiences indicate that South Africa’s non-racial project has failed? In this racially obsessed country, the likes of black populist politicians like Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema question the place of whites in the country. Showcasing these so-called ‘European’ works could be interpreted by mischievous politicians as a statement that whites are not ‘African’, but European and not deserving of African status.

What place does this divisive argument have in the new South Africa, which is confused with identity issues and sees its rainbow nation dream wither? With elections coming soon, racist rhetoric will intensify as parties with a ‘white’ image such as the Democratic Alliance, compete against parties with a ‘black’ image, such as the African National Congress and EFF. Malema knows how to ride that wave, his party attracts votes through racial bombast. But in the broad sense, most people no longer regard it as sinful, politically or artistically, to be Eurocentric.

Too often in the recent past, art has received accolades not because of its quality, but its maker’s identity. This is dangerous and misleading. Mozart may have been born in Europe some 260-odd years ago. He may have been born white-skinned and male. But these are not the reasons he is loved. He is loved because of the brilliance of his work.

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

Words we are not allowed to use: Who decides?

mOMBERG

Crude words carry a price: Using the k-word in South Africa today to refer to black people can lead to legal action. In the picture, Vicki Momberg at her trial for abusing black policemen who tried to help her

WHAT SHOULD we do about the k-word? Flight crew evicted a woman from a flight about to take off from Johannesburg to Durban two weeks ago, after she used the word in an sms to refer to the black captain and passengers, and another passenger noticed it and complained to the crew. The woman, Alochna Moodley from Midrand, admitted it was wrong, but protested that the other passenger, Reverend Solumuzi Mabuza, invaded her privacy by reading her sms. She reportedly lost her job at her company as a result. Mabuza later said that although he forgave her after she made a public apology, he still planned to open a charge of crimen injuria (wilful injury) against her.

This follows another case when Vicki Momberg a white, former real estate agent was sentenced to an effective two years in prison for a racist tirade in 2016. She was found guilty of crimen injuria, after she had lashed out at a black police officer who helped her after a smash-and-grab incident in Johannesburg. In a video clip that went viral, she complained about the “calibre of blacks” in Johannesburg. She used the k-word 48 times. In sentencing her, the magistrate said the policemen who assisted her were in their uniform ready to serve, and Momberg’s slurs stripped them of their dignity. There was widespread public support for her sentencing.

The controversial word goes way back in South African history, and was once common among sections of the white population to refer to black people. To South African ears, it is profoundly insulting, implying that the person referred to is inferior, uncultured and subject to the power of the word’s user. Colonialism and apartheid’s cruel spirit embodied in a word.

It appears in important literature, for example through the mouth of a clearly racist Oom Schalk Lourens, a complicated character in a racial country created by one of the country’s admired writers, Herman Charles Bosman. Lourens says: “I could never understand why (G-d) made the ‘k’… and the rinderpest”

The k-word has a close cousin in the United States in the insulting n-word, which has long evoked emotional reactions. In February, two books regarded as literary classics – the Pulitzer-prize winning novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, depicting racial injustice in Alabama, and Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain dealing with slavery in pre-Civil War America, which contains offensive language by racist characters – were removed from school syllabuses in Minnesota over fears their use of racial slurs would upset black students. Both books have been lauded over the years as anti-racist, although set in racially loaded contexts.

The National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People supported the decision, saying the books use hurtful language “that has oppressed people over 200 years.” But free speech organisations criticised it, with the National Coalition Against Censorship saying rather than ignore difficult speech, educators should create spaces for dialogue to teach students to confront racism. It’s like banning Charles Dickens for portraying Fagin, the Jew.

The k-word and n-word have been red flags to a bull in South Africa and the United States. Now, in some quarters, including South Africa, a new word has been added: the z-word (Zionist), which has taken on almost as insulting a meaning when mouthed by virulently anti-Israel or anti-Semitic groups. How long will this list of no-nos become?

The South African Jewish Board of Deputies’ decision last week to lay criminal charges for hate speech against three men who posted violent Whatsapp messages against Zionists and Jews, saying the Holocaust will be a picnic compared to what they are going to do to them, will test free speech boundaries. Should those men be punished for hate speech, or are their utterances legitimate political discourse?

This country is early in the process of defining its red lines on speech. EFF leader Julius Malema, a firebrand political figure, uses militant racial statements against whites and Indians, such as accusations that “the majority of Indians are racists,” and barbs against other groups such as coloureds – should it be allowed? In many western countries, such utterances by a politician would end his political career. Crude words, when repeated often enough, tend to provoke violent actions by reckless people. Malema is a potential Mussolini-in-the-making, and dangerous.

The topic tends to become irrational. But confronting it is a necessary process in clarifying post-apartheid South Africa. Remember the reputed banning of the children’s novel Black Beauty during apartheid because censors didn’t want the words ‘black’ and ‘beauty’ on the same page? Some scholars refute this, but whatever the case, the last thing we need now is to go back to that crazy mindset.

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

 

 

Is Malema South Africa’s Trump?

julius-malema-eff

Sounds of populism: Julius Malema (right) is greeted by cheering supporters during launch of the EFF manifesto at Orlando Stadium, Soweto, in May 2016

BY the time this column is read by many people the American elections will be over and the next United States president will have been chosen – Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. The contempt for Trump by many is epitomised by Israeli peace activist and politician Uri Avnery, who said even if Trump had not said all the reckless things he has uttered, there was one overriding reason to reject him: “A sound. A sound I carry in my ears since my early childhood in Germany. The sound of hysterical crowds screaming after every sentence of the Leader.”

Jewish history tells where populist leaders can take people. Ironically, this column appears on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, when throughout Nazi Germany on November 9-10, 1938, paramilitary forces and German civilians, motivated by the charismatic Adolf Hitler, vandalized synagogues, Jewish homes, schools and businesses and killed Jews.

In South African politics, the Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema evokes the sounds Avnery talks about when he addresses masses of his red-garbed followers, or when he and his party members behave like thugs in Parliament. On Monday he addressed EFF supporters after his appearance in the Newcastle Magistrate’s Court, charged with contravention of the 1956 Riotous Assemblies Act for calling on black people to illegally occupy vacant land around the country. In June this year he told supporters that white people can’t claim ownership of land because it belongs to the country’s black African majority.

He said: “We are not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now… The rightful owners of the land are black people. No white person is a rightful owner of the land here in South Africa and the whole of the African continent.”

Predictably, other political parties reacted angrily: The Democratic Alliance said Malema’s violent language had no place in South Africa’s constitutional democracy; Freedom Front Plus chairman Pieter Groenewald said Malema’s comments are “hate speech” and created the potential for civil war.

At this point in South African politics, when a wide spectrum of people are desperate to get rid of President Jacob Zuma, Malema’s conduct is tolerated for political expediency, because he is also demanding Zuma’s ouster in a dramatic way.

His aspirations reach sky-high. One hears wry comments about “President Malema” one day occupying the country’s highest office. A 2014 performance by celebrated satirist Pieter-Dirk Uys called “Adapt or Fly” featured a Malema–like doll receiving advice from Hitler on his path to power. The show traversed South African history, providing disturbing analogies between early 1930s Germany and South Africa today. Uys commented: “Julius Malema says: ‘We must control the economy – it’s in the hands of the whites.’ Hitler said: ‘We must control the economy – it’s in the hands of the Jews.’ Hitler appealed to millions of Germans who had no jobs after the First World War. Malema appeals to millions of South Africans who don’t have a job after the apartheid era.”

Black anger against white domination and land theft is justified. One only needs to go back to the Natives Land Act of 1913 which allocated about 7 per cent of arable land to blacks, leaving the more fertile land for whites and introducing territorial segregation into legislation for the first time since Union in 1910. Or apartheid’s Group Areas Act which allowed blacks to live only in designated black areas. To rectify these immoral laws’ consequences requires a legal and fair land restoration process. Malema’s utterances, however, are racist and if followed up could indeed provoke civil war.

Donald Trump’s offensive comments in the American presidential race about Mexicans, Muslims, migrants, women, and others feeds into the resurgence of jingoism and bigotry worldwide. The sounds evoked by hysterical, cheering followers of populists like Malema and Trump ultimately threatens everyone.

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