The Convenient Silences of 'Xenophobia'

I did not want to write about ‘xenophobia,’ but I was unable to contain myself when I saw four of my colleagues standing with anti-‘xenophobia’ posters and with these words printed on them: “injury 2 one, injury 2 all;” “Africa for Africans;” “Africa Unite;” and “we are all foreigners somewhere.” I am sick and tired of the word ‘xenophobia’ and the way the petite bourgeoisie are pretending they have nothing to do with it. However, this article is not about my dislike for the petite bourgeoisie, but rather about the silences in the media and conversations on the topic of xenophobia.

I identified five convenient silences that exit in the popular discourse of ‘xenophobia’ in South Africa. I called it convenient because everybody know about it but choose rather not to speak about it. These five silences are: (1) race, (2) gender, (3) locality, (4) nationality and (5) class. If you consider these five silences that you realise that what is happening in South Africa is not xenophobia but something completed different.

Firstly, if you define xenophobia it simple means is the fear of all strangers. If this is the case then it does not explain why only a certain group of foreigners are attacked. White European and Chinese foreigners are not being targeted even though they just as foreign African nationals.

Secondly, the feminist movement also haven't say anything about this particular incident mainly because the majority of victims are males. Here the popular discourse is lacking because it does not consider the gender of the victims.

Thirdly, popular discourse also does not consider the location/locality of these 'xenophobic' incidents. Yes they refer to the place like for Diepsloot Soweto or wherever it is happening, but the discourse neglects to contrast it to where white foreigners are residing. It does not happen in Sandton or the Waterfront, it happens where the majority of people are poor and destitute.

Fourthly, popular discourse neglects to contrast the nationality of the victims to other foreign nationals. Chinese and European foreigners are not being attacked. It is only some foreign nationals on the African continent who are being attacked, especially those who own spaza shops.

Finally, the discourse also does not focus on class. ‘Xenophobia’ in South Africa happens amongst the working class and not amongst the elite in society. Thus, ‘xenophobia’ is rather class bias.

If we consider these silences in the popular discourse we have to conclude that it is not xenophobia, it is also not 'Afrophobia.' If it was 'Afrophobia' then foreign nationals from West Africa would have also been attacked. It is not black on black violence. If it was black on black violence then black people from all walks of life would have participated in these attacks. It is also not economic violence or criminality since it does not explain the pogroms (mob). Crime does not explain the pogroms.

It has to be something else!

My investigation so far has led me to the 'politics of belonging.' If you see it as a 'politics of belonging' then what is happening in South Africa is not unique to South Africa. It is happening all over the continent and the world. In Uganda it is called 'indigeneity, in Cameroon it is called 'autochthony' and in the USA and Europe it is the ‘anti-immigrant sentiment.’

The 'politics of belonging' raises the question as to who may lay the claim that one group belongs more than another in a particular geographical area. As you would see this already raises issues around the idea of the national versus the international - nationalism versus globalisation.

Just a few years ago everyone was hopeful of the prospects of globalisation; however these incidents the world over see a retraction into the idea of the national. We have once more become a citizen of the nation-state. Some argue that the politics of belonging is fuelled by national consciousness. I am not convinced since the politics of belonging in most cases are isolated incidences. 

So far, through my investigation, I have narrowed the cause of the politics of belonging to migration and scarcity. What I observed so far is that there is always a migration from an area of ‘scarcity’ to an area of ‘plenty.’ The migrants integrate themselves amongst the locals and develop a new national consciousness which they share with the locals. However, when a scarcity arises a politics of belonging is ensued as to who may lay claim to the resources. The locals believe since they were the first they have the sole right over the resource distribution. This automatically leads to a confrontation especially since some of the migrants developed the same national consciousness as the locals. They believe they belong just as much as the rest, especially if they have been there for generations. 

The confrontation in most cases has been violent. However, in Europe and in the USA this confrontation so far has mostly been through law. In some cases the confrontation develops into a full scale civil war such as the one in the Great Lakes region of Africa (Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo); where the immigrant’s national consciousness is just as strong as that of the local’s. 

If we consider this, the politics of belonging is a much better explanation then the current ‘xenophobia’ discourse. The consequence of the discourse will be the following: ‘xenophobia’ will be trapped in a dominant narrative and will be reinforced by empirical research. This will blind us from its broader significance.

Escaping Fanon’s Blind Alley: A Critique of Rhodes Must Fall Campaign

Fanon’s revolution was high jacked and postponed on the eve of Africa’s independence. Africa is dependent and at the mercy of a ruthless global system. So what happened?! Now with hindsight we are able to observe a number of shortcomings with regards to Fanon’s revolution. Firstly, Fanon’s revolution was conceptualised at a national level at a time the colonial system unified at a global level. The conduit of this system at a global level was the then newly formed United Nations. Even though Fanon’s revolution had the potential of changing the nation it was incapable of changing the global environment. Thus, the scope of Fanon’s revolution was the first shortcoming, hence as soon as African states gained their independence they realised that the colonial structure evolved into something global.

Secondly, Fanon’s revolution never came into existence as it was highjacked and postponed on the eve of independence. What some scholars discard from their analysis of post-colonial thought is the following: independence was a negotiated settlement between the colonial African state and the colonial power. It was the colonial administrator of the colony who acted as the interlocutor between the colonial power and the African elite. African liberation fighters and intellectuals were co-opted into the negotiations between the colony and the colonial power. The aim of these negotiations was to ensure favourable conditions for the European beneficiary at the time. It was only once these conditions were met that the colonial power granted independence under the farce called democracy. A negotiated settlement thus can hardly be considered as a revolution. The result was that the African was held once more captive by the same global forces that were responsible for colonialism. 

Thirdly, the native intellectual nor Fanon anticipated the technological advances of the 20^th century. I noticed in the current scholarly work of African intellectuals they are not anticipating any possible technological changes in the future. This anticipation of future technological advances is important since technology played an essential part in the evolution of the colonial system. Technology allowed information to travel faster between colonial powers and for troops to be deployed in Africa at a much faster rate. The UN and its sister organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank became the conduit of this evolved system. Technological advances during this period helped to consolidate their position and they became the structures through which colonial powers could coerce and control African states. The aim was to continue the colonial status quo - where the African state is the producer of raw materials and cheap labour. In addition to this, the old civilising project continued under the banner of modernisation, development and transformation. The outcome was the continuation of the status quo and Fanon’s revolution never took off.

Thinking of the future and technology was a major shortcoming during Fanon’s time and it still resonates in today’s scholarly work. The consequence is that scholarly work is trapped in the past. What many scholars forget is that we live in a present that influences the future. Thus, we must look at the past, live in the present and shape the future. However, since we shape the future in the present we must be mindful of how this future might looks like. Important to note is that the present is a constant which makes it nearly impossible to predict the future. The tricky part is that the future is a constant which makes an end to it rather impossible. If there was an end to it the future would stop at some point. Even though we are not possible to arrive at an end we can shape the direction and reality of the future. This raises the question of how do we shape a future for the African which is without a colonial legacy.

The direction and reality Fanon had in mind can be found in his Wretched of the Earth, especially the chapter on national culture. The opening sentence of that chapter reads as follow: “Each generation must out of relative obscurity discover its mission, fulfil it, or betray it” (Fanon, 1963, p. 206). Many of you might know this quote by heart since many pseudo-revolutionaries use this nowadays. Many on these ‘revolutionaries’ never read the whole book and does not know the complexity of this opening sentence. The first time I read that sentence I wondered why he used the words ‘relative obscurity’ and ‘mission’ in the same sentence. After attending a number of seminars and reading much scholarly work on the post-colonial condition of Africa, I realised its significance.

Its significance is captured in a question: how do we think ourselves out of the post-colonial dilemma? The answer to this question will allow us to shape the direction and the reality of the African's future. First, we have to frame and contextualise this generation’s mission while keeping in mind that the future is a constant. We ideally want to shape a future reality where inequalities of our colonial past are no more. Secondly, for this to happen we have to restart Fanon’s revolution. A revolution by nature is violent but not all violence can be considered revolutions. It also thoroughly destroy all the remnants of the previous system's politically, socially and economically attributes. It is driven by the people and importantly it builds a new one from its ruins. However, even though it is violent and devastating it is more promising than transformation.

Transformation is similar to revolution but distinctively different. It also aims to change the system but at a slower pace, with minimal disruptions and it is driven by representatives of the elite on both side of the spectrum. More importantly it does not aim to destroy the old system but to rather alter the old system so that it largely continues the status quo. Moreover, transformation unlike a revolution is ongoing and has the potential of continuously altering itself in such a way it keeps the dominant social order in power. Here we see that transformation contradicts revolution. The dominant social force on both side of the spectrum will thus opt for transformation so that the system continues benefiting them. In a revolution they will be on the receiving end, hence elites of African states and scholars opt for transformation rather than a revolution as it secures their interest in the system.

An excellent example would be the Rhodes must fall campaign by UCT students and staff. In the words of the UCT SRC this is want they want to achieve with their campaign: “It is in the interest of transformation and nation building that our universities remove all colonial and apartheid symbolism and begin to reflect the South Africa we seek to build.” As you can see they opt for transformation, a transformation that will be negotiated by a selected few on both sides of the spectrum. It is also clear that they want to alter the system and is not interested in a completely new system. As I made it clear transformation does not has the potential to remove all the remnants of the old system. Thus, the Rhodes must fall campaign will not deliver on what the general populace at UCT has in mind. 

This brings an important view to the fore: what kind of mission do we want as the next generation of African scholars that will shape a future reality which is free from our colonial legacy.  Where do we assist? One thing is none negotiable: it has to a be a revolutionary mission. To put is more forcefully: the mission can only exist in a revolutionary project as it will lose its value in transformational project. We need a need a new system and not an altered system that will largely continue the status quo. This is why the Rhodes must fall campaign is a misguided struggle without any real revolutionary substance and is out of touch with the realities African students are facing. Instead of storming the Bastille (reference to the French Revolution) and overthrowing the system, they opted for meek, watered down struggle to stay relevant in a post-apartheid South Africa. Instead of storming the institution they stormed a statue, a symbol. Their struggle is so short sighted that they do not realise that once the statue comes down their struggle is over. This show how out of touch they are with the realities of the current generation’s struggle and do not see that dawn is breaking. They and many other pseudo-intellectuals are stuck in Fanon’s blind alley and is incapable of finding resonance in Keita Fodeba’s poem African Dawn:

“Dawn was breaking—dawn, the fight between night and day. But the night was exhausted and could fight no more, and slowly died. A few rays of the sun, the forerunners of this victory of the day, still hovered on the horizon, pale and timid, while the last stars gently glided under the mass of clouds, crimson like the blooming flamboyant flowers.”

They are so out of touch with our reality that they do not see dawn breaking. Ask the students of Wits, UKZN, CPUT and UWC. They have become so stuck in the rhetoric of the day that they use transformation, struggle and revolution interchangeably. They have become the petty bourgeoisie – the gate keepers of the system. They are incapable of seeing that our struggle is a global struggle and that transformation would not help us overcoming the burden of our colonial past. They are incapable of seeing that even if we transform the nation, the nation would be held captive by the global structure and will have to conform to the status quo once more. The only thing that will get us out of this situation is revolutionary thought and action. Let us learn from the past, live in the present and shape a future reality that is without a colonial legacy.  

It is raining shit in the DA

I had to write this after the latest ‘shitty’ incident in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Based on a discussion I had with my colleagues today I realised that what happened in Khayelitsha will probably set a trend throughout South Africa.

Firstly, I do not think it is a criminal offence to throw someone with shit, unless you seriously get injured or sick from it. Secondly, it put Zille’s government in a tight spot because she cannot criminalise this offence because whose rights were first infringed.

In this regard, it would be the citizens of Khayelitsha. If Zille makes the case that her dignity was infringed, the citizens in Khayelitsha’s right to human dignity was first infringed, especially after the City of Cape Town did not empty the toilets. What I was not able to comprehend is why Zille, after being warned by the ANCYL and the 2009 toilet saga, decided to visit Khayelitsha on such a sensitive matter. By just doing this it provoked citizens.

Thirdly, all politicians would now be very careful to be arrogant at community meetings, especially now that citizens have a weapon of mass destruction. This weapon is more peaceful then violent protest marches but more disgusting. Instead of burning down the councillors house citizens can just drench the house with shit. Police will also treat citizens with the necessary respect because they would be possible targets of this new found weapon. To be honest I will rather choose a stone over a face full of shit.

Citizens, I hereby urge you to use your new found weapon of mass destruction; every time you hear a politician talking nonsense flung them with shit, it seems to be the greatest insult in South Africa. 

 

Forgiveness and Emancipation

I finally understand why Mandela chose reconciliation over revenge. In his Long Walk to Freedom he gives an explanation for his approach of reconciliation. He said when he stepped out of jail, he knew he had two choices the one is to get white people back for what they have did to him or he can forgive them completely. He decided on the road to forgiveness because if he had chosen hate and revenge he would have imprisoned himself all over again.

It is funny what a strange hold hate have over oneself, and the saddest part is you expect the next person to care. The truth is that the people you hate in most cases are not aware of your feelings and does not even of care your state of mind. The issue in a post-apartheid SA is emancipation, and it can only be achieve through forgiveness.

It is bold of me to write this, but I came to realise that this is the truth.  Emancipation does not mean your problems of yesterday would magically disappear, it means that you will be willing to move on to a better life, and not expect any favours or anything from the next person (the hated one).

We black people need to forgive white people for apartheid and the injustice of the past, and white people must forgive themselves and the apartheid leadership for what they have done to them. White people were made believe that they are special and superior to black people, but this was taken away from them with the sudden abolishment of apartheid.

White people are also victims of apartheid (we can argue the extent of it). White people lost their families and friends in a silly war that benefitted them nothing, and in many cases this hate and anger is protected towards black people. Some white people blame black people for this because their family and friends were killed for fighting black communists in Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola.

Black people as victims of apartheid had to endure the constant humiliation and discrimination of white people. Black people were not allowed to use the same public spaces as black people or love someone of another race. Black had to call white people ‘baas’ (boss) and sit at the back of a bakkie while the dog is sitting in front. The homes of black people were destroyed and were forcefully removed to places that were not fit for human inhabitancy. Their friends and family were killed and imprisoned if they protested for a South Africa that is free from racial injustice.

This shows that both white and black must forgive. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was established in this regard. The aim was to let South Africans forgive and reconcile. The TRC have contributed towards this but did not succeed to get the desired results everyone has hoped for. My critic on the TRC is that the scope was too small and that it was too short-lived.

The question one need to ask is: How do you forgive? If you forgive please use the standard that was set by the Bible. Jesus said that when you forgive you must forgive 70 x 7. Once you forgive like that your mind is freed from all hatred and ‘buts’ and you are willing to move on. With forgiveness also comes acceptance. You accept that the other person might not change. You also accept the fact that you are doing this for yourself and do not expect something in return from the other party. Forgiveness is without expectations; do not expect the next person to change or care.

Mandela chose forgiveness for himself and by doing this he freed himself from the last thing that might have kept him captive, and since he made that decision, he grew stronger, wiser and became iconic. It takes more to forgive than to hate, but the results of forgiveness is far better than that of hatred.

A Nation at War With Itself

The recent gang violence on the Cape Flats, the violent protest marches in the City of Cape Town and the ‘mine war’ at Marikana cannot be seen as separate or as isolated incidents. It must be seen as symptoms of a much greater underlying issue. I see it as a nation at war with itself. In a war there are always two or more parties involved, one group always want to take control and in most cases it is a struggle over scarce resources.

The common denominator of all these events is the quality of life of ‘black’ people in South Africa and it relates to a struggle over scarce resources. The violence that is currently manifesting on the Cape Flats would have never happen if not for apartheid. It was the apartheid legislation that relocated black people on the Cape

Flats, it was apartheid that denied the majority equal education and work opportunities. So people living in Hanover Park do not have the same standard of living as their white counterparts.

The same with Khayelitsha, it was created as a dormitory township for black to sleep in and not for real development to take place. A large part of black people in Khayelitsha do not have basic services. For example, Monwabisi Park does not even have electricity. Furthermore, mine workers at Lonin Platinum mine earn a salary of about R4000.00 a month (apparently it is more but was nt confirmed). These mine workers are from the rural areas across SA and the money they earning is not enough to sustain them and their families.

The second denominator is that there are always two parties involved in these conflicts. For example, on the Cape Flats rival gangs are trying to exterminate each other. In Khayelitsha the DA claim to have evidence that the protest marches are organise by the ANCYL and in Marikana it is the mine workers against Lonin management and NUM.

The third denominator is a lost to human live. In all of these three cases you will find that human have lost their lives. In Khayelitsha and on the Cape Flats it was mostly innocent bystanders. What worries me is that violence has become the acceptable way of dealing disputes. Most political commentators and ‘so called analysts’ have been so blinded by the ANC leadership race that they are not able to connect these dots.

So here is my appeal: let us find ways to stop this trend (violence) before it is too late.

Democracy is more than just the vote

There is more to democracy than just to vote. Politicians, the media and the IEC, just to mention a few, want us to believe that by voting we are deepening democracy. Voting is a criterion for deepening democracy. Democracy also mean the right to have proper services delivered, a safe environment to live in and ‘spaces’ of participation to engage the state between elections.

Presidents Zuma this weekend said that he now understands why service delivery protest marches are taking place. This came only after the ANC was exposed as also being guilty of building open toilets. This begs the question can we believe him? I personally do not believe him because protesters usually submit a memorandum of understanding or a petition that voices their grievances. So, what happen to those memorandums and petitions? Are they collecting dust on some administrator’s desk?

The open toilet saga made aware of two things. The first is the hypocrisy of the ANC and second, it made me wonder why citizens of both Khayelitsha and Moqhaka accepted these toilets. Why didn’t they voice their grievances earlier? In the Moqhaka it is only eight years later that this particular issue got the attention of the media. This also raises an issue of media bias.

As the politicians have a responsibility towards democracy, we as the people of SA also have a responsibility and amongst other it is to engage the state between elections around issues of service delivery. We can’t sit back and expect the state to deliver service.  We have to tell them about the services we need and follow-up and make sure that they do deliver these services. You might argue and say that we do it through protest marches. But that is the problem. Protest marches only happen once the situation is so aggravated that citizens see no other way as to violently voice their grievances. And we saw how it ended for Andries Tatane.

There are ways of engaging the state at local level. There are the Integrated Development Planning (IDP), ward committees, public meetings and Imbizo’s that citizens can use to voices their problems. However, research so-far have indicated that the majority of citizens do not even know that ward committee and the IDP exist. Research also indicates that these mechanisms of participation in many cases are so dysfunctional that it does not help communities much. Here you might ask yourself why I want you to participate in structures that are dysfunctional. My answer is simple; it is dysfunctional because of a lack of community participation in these structures. However, it does not stop you from starting your own structure to engage the municipality because it is your right to engage the municipality.

As citizens we need to develop innovative ways of engaging the state and keep the state accountable. We also need innovative ways to get the state to respond to our needs but sitting and waiting on politicians to deliver will not help us one bit. So, it is important to vote but the vote alone will not change our situation it is only when we engage the state and voice our grievances and keep them accountable for the decision they are taking that we will deepen democracy.

Jacob Cloete