I’m not so sure we do.
As South Africans we’re great at asserting our unity as “a people”, by quoting Tutu, Mandela and even Mbeki (though not Zuma — not yet, anyway) about rainbows or renaissances, and we’re especially good at performing our proudly South African brand of “unity through diversity” — just look at how us whiteys got into the whole vuvuzela and soccer (or football, for the foreigners) thing. But if we dig beneath the feel-good factor, or question the content of our politically correct credentials, the truth is that we’re not great at the ubuntu we claim to author.
I realise that this sounds both offensive and inflammatory. But before you shout me down and accuse me of being an Afropessimistic bored blogger or a Zille agent with post-Fifa depressive disorder, give me a chance to expound my assertion — after all, we don’t mind diverse views, remember?
While we pride ourselves on being a miracle nation, a rainbow people, unified through our difference, I can’t help wondering whether we’re united, rather, through the spectacle of diversity, or even by our (unspoken) fear of it.
An instinctive rebuttal would no doubt be our genuinely inspiring solidarity across all manner of colour and class divides during last month’s Fifa World Cup. And not only nationally; Tutu made the circle even bigger by welcoming the entire world to participate in our unity: “Africa is the cradle of humanity so we welcome you all, every single one of you. We are all Africans.”
And welcome the world we did, with the ironic exception of Africans. Our unity with others from our continent has proved largely skin-deep, limited to the layers of face-painted flags supporting Bafana Bafana, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, Nigeria and Algeria (in descending order of preference). Concurrent with this powerful spectacle of African solidarity, our country was fiercely threatening within local communities nationals from the very countries we were so fiercely supporting on the field.
Journalists who dared raise concern about the “rumours” of xenophobic threats during the World Cup were condemned as being desperate for a sensationalist story in the absence of any World Cup crisis. In a blog for the Mail & Guardian’s Thought Leader, Siyabonga Ntshingila exemplified this trend:
“So with the football party going swimmingly, the rand and the JSE holding up well amid turbulent global trading conditions, wage negotiation season being generally less disruptive than in prior years, Julius behaving and no presidential offspring coming forth into the world, and of course the Treasury’s coffers, someone needed a story. Maybe for circulation purposes, maybe for political reasons. Or both. Who knows?”
Seriously, Siyabonga? While there are all too many examples of poor journalism around, the profession is far from the opportunistic, unscrupulous and corrupt trade described above. Journalism is, as scholar Jay Rosen describes, “democracy’s cultivator, as well as its chronicler … a willing sponsor of public talk, an invitation to participate, a convenor of civic activity, a guide to problem solving, a constructive art for a strengthened democracy”. While it often falls short of its mandate, the noble aims of journalism should not be underestimated, not least so that it can be held accountable by these standards.
There is more to our nation that the hosting of a football tournament and issues of immense consequence cannot be ignored simply for the convenience or comfort of a singular positive national narrative keeping spirits high. Though the World Cup deserved the celebration with which it was received, allowing it to overshadow (or using it as an excuse to overlook) concerns fundamental to our Constitution would undermine both the benefits of the World Cup and, far more fundamentally, the integrity of our democracy.
Interestingly, the author introduces himself as follows: “Siyabonga Ntshingila is a walking example of how not to go through life productively.” I won’t challenge him on this assertion. On the content of his blog, however, I certainly shall.
To me, his is the irresponsible “journalism”. In a country which just two years ago experienced two weeks of xenophobic violence that saw 62 African nationals killed, more than 100 000 people displaced, millions of rands of property damaged or stolen, calls made for a state of emergency and military troops deployed in city spaces for the first time since the end of apartheid, to refrain from reporting renewed threats would be of serious consequence for public-interest journalism and democratic engagement.
Yet still, Siyabonga deemed the media coverage little more than hysterical sensationalising for the sake of circulation figures — which, if his assertions were backed up by anything other than his own assumptions, would indeed warrant action from the Ombudsman:
“Of course, none of this nascent hysteria has been backed up by anything other than talk based on reports based on talk based on, well … you get the point. A smattering of foreigners on the move? Must be trouble brewing then, call in the army. It’s a national crisis. Or not.”
Well, Siyabonga, it appears that — despite Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa’s initial anger at “unbalanced media reports which still instil fear about possible attacks” — he took you literally, and called in the army to Kya Sands on Wednesday. Why? Well, 16 people were attacked and their properties looted in xenophobic attacks.
Siyabonga’s assertion that “there is no evidence that there is a looming threat of massive nationwide violence against foreigners” was supported by President Zuma’s statement that though there had been rumours of planned new xenophobic violence, he was not certain there had been actual threats and that people “should not have fears”. More curious was Mthethwa’s explanation that an investigation found that those leaving were foreign migrant workers returning home. These statements miss several fundamental facts:
1) Most importantly, that there has been sustained evidence of a credible threat by individuals within local communities. Even out-of-touch white middle-class me knows a young couple who, having been beaten in the 2008 violence and being forced to flee briefly back to a highly volatile post-election Zimbabwe, again fled their Western Cape informal settlement, this time with their newborn baby, in the midst of the World Cup celebrations in response to sustained intimidation. Even if there was little evidence that this would develop beyond idle threats, would you take a chance if you had their circumstances; their scars?
2) Respected civil-society groups and church organisations have long-since warned of continued animosity towards and intimidation of foreign nations, including robust field research from the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) Forced Migration Studies Programme, which found that “since the 2008 attacks, almost every month there has been at least one attack on groups of foreign nationals”. The South African Human Rights Commission, in fact, submitted a document to government in March 2009 outlining both underlying causes of the 2008 violence and recommendations to ensure that there is no recurrence, but this has still not been debated in Parliament. Similar experiences can be recounted by, among others, the Coalition Against Xenophobia, Zimbabwe Exiles Forum, Passop, the Social Justice Coalition and Sawima.
3) The threat does not need to be one of “massive nationwide violence” for it to warrant attention — 16 victims of violence are far too many and this figure is citing incidents in Kya Sands alone, not considering Mamelodi, Diepsloot, Khayalitsha, Gugulethu, Nyanga, Atteridgeville, Chatsworth, KwaNdengezi, Dassenhoek and other sites of recent intimidation.
The government has outlined its understanding of the causes of unrest, which it sees as a mix of opportunistic crime, youthful rebelliousness and foreign nationals evading taxes. Their “proactive” response to the renewed threats of violence includes a plan to “review and derive lessons from the May/June 2008 incidents”. It confounds me that such a review has not yet been conducted.
Particularly considering that several in-depth studies have been published looking into the causes and consequences of the 2008 violence. For example, the Forced Migration Studies Programme at Wits found that, “while opportunistic looting accompanied the violence, this was neither the primary motivation nor the source of popular legitimacy for those who initiated violence”. Gabriel Shumba of the Zimbabwe Exiles Forum affirms this view:
“Xenophobia is defined as targeted hatred or fear of individuals by virtue of the fact that they are foreigners. There has been looting of shops, but only those shops owned by specific groups, while shops owned by locals have been left largely unharmed. A South African was attacked and his response was to show documentation proving his local identity, but his attackers continued arguing that the document was fraudulently obtained. Does this not underscore national identity as the motive? It is disingenuous of the South African government to pretend that these are not xenophobic attacks, because they are blinding themselves to the root cause of these atrocities. And it you’re refusing to acknowledge the root cause, how do you find a prescription?”
We instinctively ascribe xenophobic sentiment to the desperate competition for basic resources by poor communities in South Africa, who are faced with increasing numbers of foreign nationals entering their communities and competing for housing, employment and other basic services. However, the Forced Migration Studies Programme research found that the sites in which the 2008 violence occurred were not the communities with the highest percentage of residents in absolute poverty, levels of unemployment, percentage of youth, percentage of people with low education and percentage of foreign residents. Communities did have high levels of economic deprivation, male residents, informal housing and language diversity. Their findings suggest key triggers of violence against immigrants included “competition for formal and informal local leadership positions and competition for business opportunities … in locations where formal local governance structures are weak or considered illegitimate by the local population”.
Shumba concurs with this view:
“Some local authorities and councillors have been implicated in inciting these attacks. In the end, there has been no meaningful action by the relevant parties to discipline these individuals, who are inaccurately ascribing the government’s lack of service delivery to the prominence of foreigners in these localities. We are asking the South African government to acknowledge that this is a real phenomenon and to raise awareness about the push factors that force people to seek asylum in this country. Asylum seekers are often in South Africa not out of choice, but because of a crisis of governance in their home countries. It is incumbent on the government to conscientise communities that South Africa’s freedom is in large part due to the hospitality of countries like Zimbabwe during apartheid.”
Though the staggering levels of inequality in South Africa and basic service delivery failure in many disadvantaged communities is clearly the cause of widespread and legitimate frustration and anger among many South African citizens, it is not a given that such anger should find expression in violence against extremely indigent foreign nationals and asylum seekers. We should be interrogating the failure of legitimate and more effective avenues for expressing discontent, including access to government.
Further, there is a need to contextualise the current animosity towards immigrants within broader issues of nation building, South African identity politics, urban development and social exclusion. We can build a common sense of South African identity without feeling defensive or fear that these efforts are threatened by the diversity of foreign nationals. The extremely difficult task of building a nation — a people — from a deeply divided society is a fragile task, but does not necessitate a defensive exclusivity at the expense of a more open, inclusive and democratic identity.
Our ubuntu must surely be about more than vuvzelas or the short-term optimism offered by the collective singing, dancing and feeling of national solidarity at a football (or rugby in 1995) event. Ubuntu is not an emotion or a mood. Rather, it implies the difficult and often inconvenient decision to welcome, include and assist others, at times at our own expense, when faced with the option of not having to.
Let’s remain proudly (South) African. Ubuntu ngumuntu ngabantu.
Why the gratuitous dig at Helen Zille? You must have missed her speech on the weekend: “…diversity is essential to achieving excellence and equity in our country. It is to understand what we mean when we say one nation, one future. Now, there may be some who feel threatened by our growing diversity. Let me just say this: diversity is the future of the DA, of South Africa, and of the world.”
There is always the faint instance of understanding the source of feelings, emotions and points of views. While, I’d love to respect the confusion of the issue, and: like a good-minded adult theorize the legitimacy of this extraordinary ugliness in our Nation’s recent history, the issue – I believe – has been based upon a deep reality of attitude. This attitude is no longer based on who, where, from what or why, but simply on two very basic factors: ME and NOW. As Africans, we have suffered what has been known for centuries as one of the greatest depression of human doings in its own history: of colonization and slavery, and thus as a consequence in the centuries till now: we continue to roll in it, learn to aspire and stand up from our mistakes. Yet, we tend to forget: that we are NOT the only corner of this glorious world that has tasted the echo of the foreigners coming into our territories and raping our land and women, enslaving our fathers and beating our children. Sadly, while the rest of the globe revels on, this patch of Godly Blessed Land of has chosen to lead the latter life: one of constant finger-pointing, hatred, and name-calling. Our fascination: through the age of capitalism and brainless consumption, has long been brainwashed in belief of the the equation that exoticism equals origin times distance. In amist of our history naming and neighbour blaming, seemingly Mzansi (see rest of FB comment).
Ah, yes, unity through diversity. Maybe it sounds like nonsense because it is nonsense. The only reason to unify is precisely because of a shared threat. The only reason for Africans to unify would be if they came to the shared conclusion that some non-African group is a threat to them. That is not very wise politics for a whitey, unless you have a foreign passport at hand.
Janice – You are quoting the SAHRC with a straight face? I am one of those who, whilst I know about actual foreigners who actually got threatened, think that overreaction by the newspapers simply fuels the fires and does not aid in putting them out. Perhaps the point Siyabonga was making. Perhaps no criminal activity towards any citizen should be tolerated and giving it the fancy name of xenophobia lends this violence legitimacy. It causes understanding for the culprits. Just like the other urban legend that “poor people steal” sort of soften the victims to the badly disciplined, drug scoffing mugger. “Oh shame, they had no choice but to rob”. In the case of xenophobia: ” Oh shame they can’t get jobs anymore with these cheap foreigners stealing their jobs”. It really does not take rocket science or an expensive investigation, just talk to these diverse fellow South Africans, on the street or better still, on the trains, where, I promise, we are united these days in our disgust with this so-called public transport that affects everyone’s jobs with not a squeak from any journalist but one. You want to be the keepers of democracy then investigate that which is seriously awry.
Nice piece Janice and good analysis. I cannot fault your logic. What it lacks, however, is a discussion of the REASONS for the government’s failure to addres or even accept this scenario. The problem is so close to their faces that they cannot see it. We have a government that relies on racism to exist, in fact it THRIVES on racism, and yet it pretends to eshew racism in every public announcement. It is hypocritical in the least to have laws that regulate employment by race, nationality and ‘demographics’ and yet to plead innocence when these lead to distrust and violence. We need to remove ALL racism from the laws of SA and then we might work like Kenya or Nigeria where your competence is welcomed and your ethnicity is ignored.
I agree with your article.
More generally, when people say they value diversity, they usually mean they are willing to accept someone different to them PROVIDED that person changes their values/ideas/opinions/mannerisms etc to be similar to theirs. In the corporate sector this gives rise to the so called “coconut” syndrome amongst AA appointees, who are only valued if they are white in everything but skin color.
Similarly with foreign African nationals: our acceptance is limited to them keeping out of our way and not competing with us for (as the study you quote reveals) business opportunities and informal leadership positions.
Its an age old problem, as HZ said “No complex pluralistic society has overcome the race barrier in history, but we can be the first” [paraphrased]
I don’t pretend to know the answers
“Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu”, I love that. But only as a description of value, not as a political exhortation for people towards abstract suppositions like ‘unity’ within a ‘nation’ state, etc. Even the WC can hardly be used as a demonstration of this ‘unity’, because it is a coming together of people to view their different selection of stars, styles, and teams on a global stage. This they do every day at club and country level.
The sooner SAns extricate themselves from false notions like ‘unity’ in ‘diversity’ and ‘common identity’, etc, the better chance they stand to deal with normal, not perfect,life normally.
This requires an acknowledgement that SA was founded on race and ethnicity, both social and cultural constructs, but used politically to divide them.
It missed the best chance of reconstructing a different society in 1994, when the major, racially-based, political parties failed to forsake their past, conflicting identities and start new parties.
To seek a ‘common identity’ now is like what Paul Rahe describes as’children eager to reconstruct a vast jigsaw puzzle- aware that the great majority of the pieces are missing, and that many of those which have survived are broken, and who then discover, to their great dismay, that their situation is complicated by yet another, perhaps even graver deficiency: for they have not the vaguest notion of what the puzzle would look like, if they actually managed to piece it together.
The ruling party uses any opportunity to garner greater support.
umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu! umuntu = a person.
anyway, if feel the use of the word xenophobia is intentional and blatantly wrong considering the fact that european and other nationals are not targets of these attacks. it is african nationals. in alexandra, even isi-Shangaan speaking people were attacked. so if we have to be technical in our analysis, this is not exactly xenophobic violence, becuase there would practically have been no world cup visitors! on the other hand, to acknowledge the real possibilities fueling this violence eventually leads us to that word the white media hates to use – apartheid! it is easy to account for the self loathing of the black majority as it was patr of the scheme of things in the apartheid architecture to make the black man hohld the white man in such reverence he would end up thinking nothing of himself. and this sense of unworthyness will find expression in how the black man treats fellow black people! that is all this is but for our white owned media to take this angle will make our sensitive white brethren too uncomfortble!
edwin matlapeng
Close quote after; ‘together’.
What bull blog.
While at it please do, accept that there is not such a thing as objective journalism, journalist are always the one’s pushing propaganda on behalf of their favoured masters.
Avoiding civil war in 1994 clearly shows our belief in diversity!
Remember the term XENOPHOBIA, unknown in SA, suddenly becomes a household word in the final years of Mbeki’s presidency. Coincidence?
Many bloody civil wars, genocides and political violence have been largely the result of DIVIDE-AND-RULE tactics to gain political power. Once again these tactics are being used to gain political power in SA at the cost of innocent lives, by stirring up hysteria about a xenophobia Armageddon! Shameful!
The DA’s sudden interest in the plight of poor Zimbabwean migrants is paradoxical compared to their refusal to build proper toilets for impoverished Khayelitsha residents. Read my comments in Siyabong’s excellent blog: http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/siyabongantshingila/2010/07/11/xenophobia-fears-and-the-dirty-politics-of-hysteria/ to see what the DA gains from there devious tactics.
The fixation of our previously privileged on Zimbabwe, as opposed to the rest of Africa, is curious isn’t it?
Until the government drops ALL forms of racial profiling, and discrimination, there will never be racial harmony in South Africa.
We cant pretend to be united while the ANC led government continues this discrimination.
South African society has race and ethnicity at its political base. Confined to the social and cultural level, these are harmless constructs just like the diverse names we give to ourselves for conveninence. But used as a political weapon, which happens in any race-centred society, they are very lethal, because politics socialise people into a belief that it is a ‘natural’ phenomenon to assume that phenotypic features predict personalities, values, intellect, morality, and other stereotypes. Thus race becomes, not only a social or cultural category, but an organising principle of everyday life, facilitating individual decision-making on matters like residential choice, employment policies, selection of friends and associates, self-concept and concepts of ‘others’.
In SA the policies facilitated the development of the ‘naturalness’ of the latter features, which gave birth to an complex interplay between politics, economy, social norms and standards, and even physical features.
There is nothing wrong in fantasising about ‘unity in diversity’ depending on what one means, but the politicised social and cultural base will remain intact as long as it still benefits politics.
Thus we will still have the ethnic-based provinces, sections in townships. Campaigns will differ in terms of race and ethnicity. Political parties will attract voters according to how they promise to build ‘free houses, provide ‘free electricity’ and water, etc. All these are color-coded, but professedly not.
Here is a very good speech, delivered way back in 1997. (before the first recorded xenophobic murders of two Senegalese, which was in 1998)
http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1997/070232297.htm
It called for a tough, strictly enforced immigration policy. Much of the research was done by the HSRC. Unfortunately, the guy who tried to get this policy implemented – Buthelezi – was not from the ANC. So the ANC did their best to ensure that that draft never became law.
So the people on the ground are now implementing their own immigration & deportation policy.
Why do so many South Africans perceive racial diversity to be a feature unique to this country? Across Europe, the Americas, the near and Far Easts and Australasia, populations are very mixed but xenophobia is not headline news before it happens.
I am convinced the whispers were there before the WC began; I heard enough of them. The media took them up, which is their right and meant no one in government could have been oblivious, which was necessary to ensure the correct levels of alertness to quash and insurrection.
But if we misunderstand the causes, that’s where we need to look for answers; the correct ones.
Perhaps government needs to decide whether the populations wants more than it deserves (extremely high wage demands) or whether it cares at all about those who suffer most by having less than they (there are other reasons given for some violent outbreaks) and whether it intends to do anything worthwhile to resolve issues.
Whatever the correct answers to the question, it seems to me that government couldn’t seem to care less. It’s all talk and no action.
Change, especially when integrating diversity, is mostly complex and takes time to make small steps. Impatience and denial don’t help. Janice, your blog healthily adds to the debate and has got us thinking. Hopefully, we too will contribute sensibly after giving your analysis and perceptions due consideration. Well done.
Good blog Janice. Surely even the simplest (and I don’t mean stupid; just poor maybe) of people knows there is xenophobia in SA. Even these know how to fix it. Give people jobs. Aha, it’s simple but hard. It can be done.
First, lend a hand to fixing the countries the migrants come from. SA’s leaders (Mr Mbeki you traitor)should raise their voices first, then act against corrupt leadership in the neighbouring states. Then act to encourage free, stable and honest governments to be in place. Zim is the best example of SA’s abject failure.
Then dismantle state monopolies in transport, power, telecommunications etc. Open up licences for all (quote Mike Schussler). Do away with legislation that favours cronies. Improve education, healthcare, justice and policing by appointing honest, competent people and more at lower levels. Trim bloated and incompetent cadre management of state institutions.
Then, finally, tighten up border controls, get rid of the incompetent and corrupt that clog Home Affairs etc.
See, it can be done. You just need an honest backbone. No sign of it yet.