(This piece first appeared on tonylankester.com)
I’m usually pretty open-minded when it comes to reading or hearing the views of foreign journalists about South Africa. I enjoy hearing their perspectives, even if they are sometimes a bit naive and dewy-eyed. Occasionally I will get frustrated that they fail to see a broader picture or take our unique context into consideration. Rarely, though do I find myself getting exercised or angry about what they write or say. Today, however, is one of those days.
A Facebook friend linked to an article in the UK’s Daily Mail titled: “He has four wives and he faced 783 counts of corruption: PETER HITCHENS on South Africa’s next president” and, after wading through the patronising, smug, biased, drivel that followed I wanted to board the next plane, find Mr Hitchens and choke him with his own phlegm.
Let’s be clear — I am not an apologist for either the ANC or Jacob Zuma. I have been — in public and in private — highly critical of both. But something in the region of 60% of our country’s population has voted for them in this election. And yet Hitchens knows better than all of them combined. So I can’t stand by and watch him parade a series of right-wing opinions disguised as journalism like the worst kind of pedagogue and pretend that it is ok. It’s not.
Hitchens’ basic premise is that South Africa is a failure, and it is only a matter of time before we go down the toilet. Because that’s what happens to all African countries. Because Africans cannot survive without the learned guidance of the “civilised” West.
To back up his argument he cites a shopping list of what he seems to think are disasters of the New South Africa. While factually some of what he writes may be true, he embarks on shameless hand-picking of events and selective focusing on some events to prop up his racist arguments. He ignores some of the truths he finds inconvenient, he dismisses that which argues against him. His world view is a simple one — he is right, everyone else is wrong, and Africa will be a disaster because it cannot be any other way.
Mr Hitchens — it is precisely because the West has, for decades, seen Africa as a one-stop shop for slaves and mineral wealth, and a place for adventure, shameless resource-pillaging and colonial mischief that the continent has battled to find its own feet.
Yes, there is corruption on the continent. Perhaps it is more obvious, less underhand and sophisticated than the influence-peddling and corruption that happens in the West, but it is no different in essence. Africans are no more inherently corrupt or evil than any other people anywhere else in the world. Yes, we had Idi Amin. But Germany had Adolf Hitler. Yes, there were massacres in Rwanda (that the West and the UN ignored), but there are regular reports of kids in America taking guns to school and mowing down their classmates. We have wars and genocide over political power. The UK and US go to war over oil. Every society has good, and every society has evil. Neither the good nor the evil defines the whole society, but the way society deals with the evil can offer insight into its true nature.
Let’s ignore, for a moment, how the West has chosen to deal with the evil it has encountered over the decades. It is not beyond reproach but I suspect you wouldn’t appreciate being lectured by a mere African so let me stick to something I can talk about — my own backyard.
How did South Africa deal with the joint evils of British colonialism and apartheid? We had decades of misery, deprivation of basic day-to-day services and non-existent human rights for the vast majority of our population. Then the apartheid government, giving in to internal and external pressure, began making a tentative move toward democracy. It was smoother than most would have imagined it could have been. There were negotiations, there were arguments, there was a referendum. Then within four years of the start of that process we had our first democratic election, followed by the mature purging of the country’s conscience led by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There was minimal bloodshed and since then we have had more similarly peaceful elections.
You refer to today’s election as “hopelessly one-sided and rather crooked” as if those terms are interchangeable. Why does having one party dominate, immediately imply that it is crooked? There has not been a single international observer, commentator or analyst at any of our elections who has concluded that our polls are anything other than free and fair. I too would like a more robust multi-party democracy. But others disagree with me and since they outnumber me they will prevail. It’s called democracy, Mr Hitchens, and if the people of South Africa want one party to dominate, then please respect that. Yes, even if you disagree with that party or dislike the individual at the top of it. Even if that person is steeped in a culture that confounds you, Mr Hitchens, or is outside your own frame of reference.
A culture that is accepting of polygamy and respects traditional medicine. That is celebrated by people wearing clothes different to yours, and who have ways of behaving that, through your colonial eyes, may appear quaint, amusing or primitive. South Africans are proud of their culture and just because some of us choose to celebrate life through traditional dance carrying a spear and wearing traditional clothes rather than putting on a tuxedo and heading off to the Royal Albert Hall, does not make us inferior to you, just as your expression of your culture does not make you inferior to us. Such cultural imperialism is as despicable now as it was when the continent was blanketed with colonial do-gooders trying to “tame the savages” by sharing their civilised world with us.
In your article you make much of the shockingly poor conditions in which many South Africans live. You are right. It is shameful and it is unacceptable that so many live in shacks without proper sewerage, running water or electricity. It is devastating that so many people don’t have access to decent education or basic healthcare. And, yes, someone should be held accountable for that.
But you are too quick to lay all of that blame at the ANC’s door. Those conditions — or at least the roots of those conditions — extend back to long before 1994. Things were not rosy for black people under white rule, as you seem to imply they were. Bantu Education, to give just one example, had as its basic premise that black people did not need education and so it was wasteful to spend money educating them. So suddenly, come 1994, we not only had millions of children attending schools with rudimentary facilities and overstretched teachers, but we also had millions of adults who for decades had been deprived of access to decent facilities.
Play that same basic scenario out in virtually every other field — healthcare, policing, water, electricity, sport and the arts.
How do you fix that sort of legacy? Where do you begin? I have no idea. Nor, frankly, did our politicians and, yes, a lot of South Africans are deeply pissed off that that is the case and that more hasn’t been done. We also hold out the hope that it will still get fixed. Meanwhile spare us your patronising tone and the implication that we are to be a basket case because, well, we’re African.
There’s an assumption there that all African countries will eventually collapse. Your language betrays your prejudices — in one paragraph you juxtapose Africa with what you call “the civilised world”… as if poor Africans could not possibly be civilised, at least not to the standard by which you measure civilisation.
You refer to Nelson Mandela as “politically ineffectual and naive”. Just the opposite is true. Only a genuine statesman and adept politician could have steered this country away from civil war to peace as he did. I cannot imagine George W Bush or Margaret Thatcher coming close to achieving anything similar.
You state that last year “Violent xenophobic rage against uncontrolled mass immigration was played down … in South Africa”. Where were you, Mr Hitchens when it dominated every single radio, television and newspaper news story in this country for weeks on end?
You refer to Koeberg and how it has caused “fears of an African Chernobyl”. Not in anything I have read or in any conversations I have heard.
You repeatedly refer to squatter camps that have “sprung up” around the country, implying that they were not there before the ANC came to power. No, Mr Hitchens, they were here. But if you visited the country in the 80s you presumably stayed far away from the dire poverty in the rural corners of KwaZulu-Natal and the squalor in the “homelands”. The only reason you are seeing them now is that people are free to move where they want. And where they want to be is close to the cities and the jobs they might offer.
Now to Jacob Zuma, the main focus of your article. You dismiss him as a “populist one-time Zulu herd-boy”. Um, so what, Mr Hitchens? Ronald Reagan was a populist one-time B-grade Hollywood actor. John Major had three O-levels and failed in his first job application to be a bus conductor.
Yes, Zuma has not answered corruption charges against him in court. Most South Africans would have preferred it if he had, and are angry that he hasn’t. But politicians the world over have a way of sliming out of trouble. The implication is that Zuma got away with it because he is no better than the rest of Africa’s leaders, and so South Africa will go the same way as many other countries on the continent.
Presumably the same standard doesn’t apply to Silvio Berlusconi, Bill Clinton or any one of the dozens of other Western leaders who have faced corruption allegations against them in the course of their careers. Or, worse, the ones who get away with it completely — those who take money from big oil companies to embark on a multibillion-dollar war with Iraq, for example.
The point, Mr Hitchens, is not that Zuma is African and therefore gets off scot-free. It is that he is African, and therefore you feel you can use him to prop up your prejudiced assertion that all Africans are corrupt.
I repeat what I wrote earlier — I have been, and will continue to be, critical of Zuma and the ANC when I feel I have something to say about them. I would never, however, demean a fellow South African’s culture, belittle things they hold dear or claim any sort of cultural high ground because, in 2009, the world has no space for such narrow-minded arrogance.
All is not doom and gloom in Africa, just as all is not perfect in the West. Spare us your proselytising and your sanctimonious “holier than thou” attitude. We’ll get by without your ill-informed perspective and your cultural bigotry, thank you very much.
Tony,
As a South African living abroad and hoping to return to South Africa one day it is very sad to constantly be hearing about the doom and gloom of South Africa following in footsteps of its neigbours. It makes me feel the need to carefully consider my actions before bringing my children to the continent I grew up in and love.
I would like to thank you for this article as it brings hope to me. I agree that things arent perfect, however, condemnation and outright finger pointing is not going to solve the problems. Fair and open debate from all sides will “hopefully” lead to a more informed and democratic process.
excellent article. hitchens’ article sounds a lot like one printed yesterday in the sun, headlined: “Jacob Crackers – meet the potty ‘president’ of south africa”. its embarrassing that people read this sort of trash and actually take it seriously. and the focal question posed by the article was which wife he’d choose to be first lady. riveting stuff. brit’s are top dogs at the skill of looking down their noses.
Hitchens (like his brother Christopher – whom he hates) is an opinionated Pom whose sole focus is self-promotion. Even in his own England he finds little to praise.
The main thing wrong with the Whole World is it does not do things as Peter Hitchens wants (which, of course, varies). Mind you, I suppose if your subject is politicians and you criticise EVERYTHING, you are going to be right a lot more than half the time.
Having spluttered that, I must confess that we do need to read criticisms and try and heed them. No matter how irritating the messenger, the message usually bears mulling over.
Your reply to Peter Hitchins article was very well done. For him to talk about curruption from where he comes is cynical indeed. “Our” curruption whilst not to be sanctified is very mild compared to theirs. Can he answer to the cancellation of the investigation into the arms deal with Saudi Arabia for instance. Having spent the last 5 years in Europe and now back in South Africa my criticisms of this Government are far more forgiving that they used to be. I have seen what goes on in the so-called “first world” and “civilised” countries and am very proud of what we have achieved here over the last 15 years and as before I voted for the leading party to say thank you to them for saving our country 15 years ago and to say thank you for improving the country over the last 5 years whilst I was away and to wish them well over the next 15. We have a lot to do and everything is far from rosy but no party or government in the world could have turned the mess that they inherited into success in just 15 years or even in the next 15. Our biggest difficulty is going to be to manage the expectations of the huge numbers of poor and unemployed.
Well said. The Hitchens article made my blood boil too and the stagy expression of self-righteous concern on the face of the author in the accompanying photograph makes my hand twitch.
Well said, Tony!
Well put.
I don’t think you’re completely honest with the foreign columnist – Peter. Reading what you claim he has said, I see no difference from what has been written about Zuma and the ANC by our own home grown columnists. Arch-Bishop Tutu has made a comparison between Zuma and Obama, basing it largely on Zuma’s cultural practice? Mail & Guardian thinks Zuma will have a serious dilemma in choosing the first lady among his wives.This sounds like prejudice to me?
Peter Hitchins is spot on on many issues he raises. Let’s not vilify the man because he says hard truths we so often want to wish away.
Let that be a lesson to you! Reading the Daily Mail is never a good idea: it is always full to the brim with racist, xenophobic nonsense. If you want to read an article from yesterday’s edition of the Daily Mail have a look at this . Of course the main problem that they seem to have with Zuma is his choice of ‘native’ dress and the Umshini Wami song (Is it not the British whose guard wear silly bear skin hats and who sing national anthems that revel in slaughtering the Scots?). And I don’t think that the author is nearly dismissive enough when he states that in the old days Zuma would have been referred to as a “cheeky K******”
of course, it could be that over 60% of South Africans are fools. Popularity of a decision doesn’t make it a good decision.
Tony, you make me proud to be a (white) South African……..I agree with you 100%
Sentletse you’re allowing hatred to cloud your already exhausted mind. Are going to cheer on everyone who insults and swear at Jacob Zuma and the ANC? Me thinks you’re stooping very low and threatening to take everyone with you.
A trashy journalist in a trashy tabloid, for which there is no cultural equivalent in SA. Nevertheless, one thing the Brit press can do is provoke a national conversation.
Consider (Matthew 7:3-5) the South African news media. Why, for example, did something like the recent report of 12,000 child rapes in Gauteng in 2008 get so little coverage in the SA press? Why was it not a hot topic immediately before the election? Anyone not from South Africa would be amazed that it wasn’t.
Essentially no difference between the way Peter Hitchens writes and the way Tony Lankester writes. Take the following snippet:
“Or, worse, the ones who get away with it completely — those who take money from big oil companies to embark on a multibillion-dollar war with Iraq, for example.”
Could have been written by either of them.
Spot on, as a South African living in Europe I can’t believe some of the pure k*k that gets printed in the newspapers over here – no wonder they are so ignorant about SA. And as another reader said, the same political shananigans that happen in SA also happen in the UK etc. Being in Europe has certainly made me realise that people who live in glass houses can’t throw stones.
Chill my dear and crack a nice COLD beer (something poor old Hitchens won’t get in the UK). Related to Christopher Hitchens, the smarmy atheist? Shame, it gets worse for the poor fellow. Leave him alone now.
In any case, we should know better than to read anything in the Daily Mail, let alone waste energy being offended by it. Just take comfort that the morons who regularly read that rag can neither afford to visit SA nor to invest here, so let them sit on their haemorrhoids in Luton or wherever, feeling superior if that scratches their itch.
Which is not to say we shouldn’t get on with some related discussions here. I’m amongst those who are uncomfortable with having a polygamist who buys his wives, for President… Suddenly it’s cool to be “100% Zulu Boy” (though it never was when King Goodwill Zwelithini did it in the apartheid years). But dressing in leopard tails (real? fake?) with your way-past-their-prime legs on show, not to mention falling over on your bum with same legs in the air and everything wobbling – well, it’s just not my ideal Presidential image. Call me a racist, no doubt someone here will oblige, but I think we’ve still got lots to talk about as a nation, as well as plenty to celebrate. Let the fun begin.
well said, bravo
Hitchens has completely re-worked the article for a post in Conservative American. He has added in a lot more of the “rooi gevaar” for American readers, and is still highly critical of the ANC and Zuma, but you can hardly accuse him of racism. This is free speeach folks, like it or lump it. Once everyone gets over the euphoria of the elections, grim reality will re-assert itself, don’t doubt it for a moment. Please read the article:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/20/00009/
I have a distinct suspicion all the kneejerk-patriotic pollyannas wouldn’t be so defensive if Hitchens’ article wasn’t striking some very loud chords.
Hi Tony!
Gosh man, I would not find any1 in this world to debate upon Mr stupid H’s article. you know for once is the naive West set down and critically analysed SA and other parts of the world in which they dont consider as civilised through the eyes of oridinary citizens of such countries, that might make a difference. 1stly lets talk about how media coverage do the western coutries have of any African country altogether on a daily basis? NONE WHATSOEVER if you ask me! they just rely on purely googling nonsense about our countries and writing racist crap about us!!!
if SA was so bad why is it that afta all the racist white ppl left for Austrialia, they still were fighting to be able to place an x on our so called screwed up country’s ballot papers?
What about all the other white ppl that have stayed behind when their extended families fled SA?
Sweetheart stupid Mr H, before you attempt writing anythng again about SA. How about you get ur ASS here and write from the visual evidence you have accumulated! For now you are making noise and wasting your countries paper! We invite you openly to come get the bigger picture and not speculate data like that worthless report of urs!!!
“But something in the region of 60% of our country’s population has voted for them in this election. And yet Hitchens knows better than all of them combined.”
This is “Appeal to Popularity” fallacy, which you accuse Hitches of in the next paragraph:
“Hitchens’ basic premise is that South Africa is a failure, and it is only a matter of time before we go down the toilet. Because that’s what happens to all African countries.”
But I do agree with your underlying thesis.
The sad thing is that this Hitchens clown cannot even write properly. Drivel is more sufferable to read if at least the writer applies some thought to what he writes and actually writes well (think Winston Churchill). This fool is no more literate than Zuma and one would wonder if he is monogamous. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Anyways, the UK Daily Mail is no longer than a gutter tabloid, really so who cares what they say about our country and our Pres…presi…presid…Ok, I still have to get used to calling McZum Presid…..
Excellent.
Well said Tony. I read the Hitchens article and my thoughts about that could be summed up as “WTF?”.
Gee, I did not know that there are so many genuine apologists for Zuma and his ilk. But when it come to some concrete issues of “culture” like saying that garlic and beetroot are superior medicines to scientifically researched an proven products, then in my humble opinion these conniving imperialist, racist bigots seem to have a point.
There was an article in the London Guardian by Simon Jenkins that, though critical, was far more insightful and balanced. Unfortunately it has been pulled because the paper is being sued by Zuma.
Thanks to SA blogger Tauriq Moosa I managed to read the original.
Here is Tariq Moosa’s URL:
http://tauriqmoosa.wordpress.com/
Here is Simon Jenkins’ article:
http://www.almendron.com/tribuna/24173/get-used-to-a-corrupt-and-chaotic-south-africa-but-dont-write-it-off/
Don’t usually get involved in debate in the comments section (not enough space to articulate an argument, and things tend to spiral downard), but just want to respond to a couple of you:
@ian shaw: I think you’re confusing Jacob Zuma with Thabo Mbeki and his partner in grime, the erstwhile Minister of Health. It would be fine if Hitchens were engaging in a debate about the efficacy of Western versus Traditional medicine (like you, I think Western would prevail). But he wasn’t. He was using the issue of traditional medicine to paint practitioners as being primitive and inferior. There’s a difference.
@Foom Quite right. Especially the part where you agree with me.
@Ladyfinger your argument makes no sense. We’re polyanna-ish because we think he’s right? I’m not getting it.
@Haze No, I couldn’t have written Hitchens’ article. I’m not a bigot.
@Duncan Quite right. But the alternative is to agree to let a few “wise people” decide what’s best for us. We’ve been there, didn’t work, so we have to live with democracy.
@Sipho The M&G raising the “who will be the first lady” issue isn’t the same thing. It’s a valid question for the citizens to ask when their President has more than one wife. It’s not valid, however, to say “he has more than one wife therefore he will be a bad President” which was the way Hitchens wrote his article.
Tony Lankester, why should choosing a first lady be a concern? Are you familiar with the set-up in the Zuma household? It seems you’re also concerned about his bedtime issues. Aren’t you?
Come now Tony, surely you agree that if you wear strange traditional clothes and indulge in traditional song and dance, you can’t run for high office, ask any Scot who ever wore a kilt or tapped to a bagpipe, I’m sure they all agree.
The UK has a poverty problem too, it is very small, which is the point. In 200 years of government, they couldn’t fix it, so in Africa where we have a problem that is a thousand times bigger, we should be able to fix it in all of 14 years shouldn’t we?
Everyone hammers on Shaik’s fraud, as far as I could determine, he was removed from society for a business practice which the UK invented and which is called the old school tie system (it’s who you know, not what you know that counts).
Scorpions were created to fight organised crime, yet they spent all their time investigating the petty crimes of politicians (travelgate, getting 4×4’s at a discount, etc). My take? Good riddance.
Peter Hitchens? What an A** hole!!!