Freedom and apartheid 27 years later
South Africa is supposed to be celebrating 27 years of democratic rule on the 27 April 2021. The 27 years, which is also the number of years Pres Mandela spent imprisoned, was supposed to be a moment of triumph to the many who previously had to endure the furnace of apartheid ideology.
There has been propositions made about when and how apartheid died. These propositions were clearly designed, correctly or not, to create a narrative of continuous triumph over all ills born from the apartheid ideology. This is so despite glaring signs of stagnation of our democracy as a result of the roots which were left to form after the apartheid trees were cut. Hence it is easy for some leaders of the struggles of yesteryear to denounce the existence of apartheid. History taught us that apartheid was not just a system of government. It was founded on the desire for a category of South Africans (certain whites) to reign over others (blacks) whom they saw as less of people. The mindset of a huge section of white people was so neatly carved that they had no reason to explain themselves to anyone. Beyond the advent of democracy, they still constituted a significant force bent on protecting white priviledge while continuing to sing only the second and third parts of the national anthem.
At the belly of the struggles waged by black people lay poverty and dehumanisation. This is what the people fought to free themselves from and the right to vote was the vehicle towards the defeat of poverty and dehumanisation. Contrary to the created illusion that says since we all vote, therefore we are all free and equal. South Africa is a country of laws. Laws are however given life by people. In the context of the South African socio-economic space, you have a section which is protected by the apartheid roots which were allowed to form standing opposite the section that had cut the trees and to their detriment, neglected to uproot and sieve the roots. This was apartheid’s most puzzling trick which was successfully implemented to protect the ill-gotten privilegdes which entrenched inequality. The narrative made on the death of apartheid makes a mockery of those who were victims of it. While dehumanisation was evident from the time of land dispossession, the apartheid ideology legalised the racial crimes committed. That is the reason today we talk of existing racial inequalities while not accepting that racism is a central feature of South Africa’s problems. The beliefs which were the cornerstone of the apartheid ideology were embedded in the minds of the perpetrators of oppression and to ensure future survival of those beliefs, they systematically fed this ideology to generations after them through writings, identity and others forms of keeping their ideology alive.
Almost three decades since the advent of democracy, the social grievance remains unresolved. Who stands to benefit in case the African grievance gets abandoned? From the perspective of the man and woman who are swimming in poverty, it does not matter who is to benefit. The question likely to be asked is; who is it that we had sent to fail the cause of black people? Correctly so. You cannot look outside for help if your salvation is right inside the very room you occupy. It is clear that what was meant to be the South African social contract never found an embrace by all South Africans. Had it found an embrace, the land question and the social grievance would have been long resolved. Apartheid denialists believe that the delays in resolving the social grievance hasve no relations with race. They employ a presumption that seeks to paint South Africans as one, equal and happy people. In their analysis of the South African problem, they ignore the reality of a South Africa defined by two economies. If those falling within the first economy finds no reason to part with certain priviledges which it were to happen, would have improved the situation of those within the second economy, then there is no social contract between the state and those living within the first economy. Given the nature of the South African freedom, the commitment to the social contract has been made to be a matter of choice whereas it should have a matter of necessity. For a section of a population to reserve their right of not agreeing to be party to a programme of building a nation with a single economy which prioritises the poor is an insult to the constitution and a snub of its values.
The Presidential statements on the occasions of celebrating a South Africa that votes together have over the years been reconciliatory and geared towards building social cohesion. The patience of those who have embraced the South African social contract has been evident for the past 26 years. Are we to celebrate the 27th year of political freedom with the same calls as those made during the 27 year incerceration of Madiba? A look at critical sectors of the economy exposes where ownership of the South African economy lies. This is a phenomenon from the apartheid state and carried over to the democratic South Africa. With agriculture and farming, which are largely at the centre of the land disputes, these sectors did not grow by themselves. These were with thought and order, strategically structured to the benefit of a section of the population. In this regard, reference should first be made to the outcomes of the great wars of resistance fought between blacks and whites (English and Afrikaners). These weren’t battles about anything else but land which the victors used to extend their control over the losers and strengthen their grip on agriculture and farming. Today’s conditions still reflect the outcomes of those of those wars. In 1913 the parliament of white people passed the Native Land Act whose main purport was to locate black people in areas chosen by their white counterparts. This technique was presented as a genuine act by the white parliament in giving land to the black people. The brilliance of this technique was in allocating certain pieces of land of which the control of the said land, remained with the white parliament. The ideology of apartheid had already been born. And as a result, all the good areas whose soil was good for farming and agriculture was reserved for the white people. Here again, the outcomes of the Natives Land Act are still visible with clear resistance to the redistribution of the said land in advancing the social contract. The mining and ICT sector were similarly geared towards the sustenance of the white parliament. The investment which was dedicated to these sectors was sufficient to ensure the future over black people. As seen today, the results of the investments of yesteryear are being enjoyed by certain beneficiaries.
The cited areas, when more detail is fed, points to the fact that apartheid still exists though not pronounced through continuing inequalities. With all inequalities informed by race, what is wrong in accepting that the apartheid ideology is still alive and its interests have found protection in the constitution? The President faces a very difficult task when he addresses the nation on the 27th April 2021. He will be addressing a nation of people who identify with the aspirations of the majority of South Africans while on the other hand, there will be that minority section that will be saying “in all you say or do Mr President, don’t interfere with our hard fought benefits”.
Phillip Darkie Mbanyana is a community activist, a former law practictioner and director of Darkie Mbanyana Solutions.
