This is my conclusion after the
June 7, 2014 convocation elections. I was hoping that the winner would be the
current student generation; who picked up the struggle where the ‘hek toe’
generation left it in 1994. ‘Hek toe’ (to the gate) was the famous words
students at the University of the Western Cape used in the 1980s when they
protested for democracy and freedom. The ‘hek toe’ generation is now the very
same people who are now buying student votes for their narrow self-interest. For
this, they are using struggle rhetoric and beer to manipulate struggling
students into voting for them.
The ‘hek toe’ generation failed
the current generation of students. I came to this realisation in Friday’s
staff meeting called by Professor O’Connell. The SRC President wanted to say
something in the meeting but staff members refused to give him an opportunity
to speak because they felt it was not his place to speak. I was one of two
staff members who asked the house to reconsider the decision and give him an opportunity
to speak. I did this because I could see this would further alienate the staff
(mostly the ‘hek toe’ generation) from the current generation of students. Not surprisingly my appeal was shot down. It
was after this that I came to the realisation that the ‘hek toe’ generation are
failing to see themselves in the eyes of the current student generation. Not so
long ago the ‘hek toe’ generation were also seen as irrational and destructive,
and yet they were the ones who changed the course of history.
This is how the ‘hek toe’ generation failed
the current student generation – they rejected them. When students realised
that they have been rejected they started looking for people who would listen
to them and entertain their issues, and this was when opportunistic patrons
started using students for their interests. To explain this in more detail we
have to look at studies of criminology and political violence. Where the state
is absent or rejected its citizens you would find the most violence which is
perpetuated by members of the patron client networks. These networks to a
certain extent give people what they need but it comes at a cost. The only and
the most important difference between the state and the patron client network
is accountability. The state through various mechanisms is held accountable
which is not the case in a patron client network. Unlike the state the ultimate
aim of the patron is to make money and use those in the network to make it
happen. However, those in the network are to blinded and flabbergast by rhetoric
that they are willing to do all the dirty work of the patron. Those in the
network doing the dirty work genuinely believe they do this for the greater
good of the people.
Thus, coming back to the elections
of the convocation this year it explains why student leaders from rival
political parties joined the biggest UWC patron client network. The ‘hek toe’
generation are so caught up in their 1994 achievement that they are blinded to
see the struggle of the current student generation, which is a continuation of
their (‘hek toe’ generation) struggle. Thus, after being rejected many times by
the ‘hek toe’ generation these student leaders joined a network that listened
to them and filled them with rhetoric.
With this in mind, I cannot be
but disappointed at the ‘hek toe’ generation. However, my biggest
disappointment is that the current generation do not see their strength and
what they can achieve when they join forces. The convocation and the university
council are crowded by the ‘hek toe’ generation and they have forgotten the
struggle of this generation. Yet, the current generation convinced themselves
that they are not old enough to join the ranks of convocation and council. Inexperienced
and too young is what they called the only student candidate. More outrageously
she was also the only female candidate and the irony is that it was mostly
other females who verbally attacked her. I asked one of females who were campaigning
for two of the candidates whether we must deny young and inexperienced females
Employment Equity opportunities. She responded by saying it is different. I
asked her how, especially if the principle is seeking equality in a male
dominated environment. To make matters worse I saw the Gender Equity Unit of
the University of the Western Cape campaigning for two of the male candidates,
this after they are refusing to run any programmes for males.
It saddens me this happened in
Youth month. Every year we celebrate and commemorate the boldness of the 1976
generation. A generation who did not convinced themselves that they are too
young or are too inexperienced. It was the 1976 generation who radically change
the course of the apartheid history, and they were so powerful in their
conviction that the apartheid state had to kill them.
The truth is, a patron client
network will not achieve the struggle of this generation. I have to say that it
is not only a UWC phenomenon but that it happens throughout the whole of South
Africa. The most evident example is the ANCYL. The once revolutionary ANCYL has
become the puppet of some strongmen in the ANC. The ANCYL were disbanded and
banned from speaking their mind.
If there is one thing this
generation must realise is that they are alone in their struggle and that no
patron client relationship will help them achieve it. So here is my challenge
to the students at the University of the Western Cape. It is time for you to
take over Convocation and Council in sheer numbers and get your issues on the
agenda. Here is my strategy to those leading the struggle. Capture both SRC and
Convocation bodies before you go after the Chair of the University Council, why
follow when you are capable of leading.
