Women are no Saints

Women are as equally bad and evil as men. Mamdani (2001) in his book on the Rwandan genocide ask a very important question: Was the perpetrators of the genocide only males?  He found that women played an active role in pointing out potential victims and they were standing by supporting and encouraging their male counterparts to kill. This made women equally the perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.

We must ask that same question when we want to determine the gender of the perpetrators of slavery, colonialism and apartheid. In all these cases you will find that women must be attributed equal perpetrator status as that of their male counterparts. 

If you read the autobiography of Frederick Douglas and if you read James Walvin’s book titled ‘The trader, the Owner and the Slave’ you will soon realise that women during slavery were sometimes crueller than male counterparts. In Frederick Douglas’ book he explains how a slave owner’s wife asked one of her ‘white’ sons to beat up their mulatto brother because she hated the slave girl by who her husband had the child.

Karel Schoeman in his book ‘Kinders van die Kompanjie’ explains how Dutch women were against soldiers and vryburgers taking Khoi women as wives. The Dutch women of the Cape Colony considered the Khoi women as barbarians and thus it would have been a sin if any of the men married any of the Khoi women. The children that were born from these relationships (between Khoi women and Dutch men) were rejected by the Khoi and by the Dutch women and they were raised as servants in the homes of their fathers. 

The attitude of ‘white’ women during apartheid was no different than that of the ‘white’ males. The ‘white’ women like in the case of the Rwandan genocide supported apartheid openly even though they did not commit the physical atrocities. Thus, I cannot help but feel a sense of sympathy for ‘white’ males because today when you talk about the atrocities of apartheid, colonialism and slavery you imagine a ‘white’ male with a whip or a gun. Feminists strategically removed themselves from the atrocities of the past by painting them also as victims of a ‘white’ male dominated world. However, this is one of the biggest fallacies or dogma modern day feminists follow. History shows that women at times were also active participants in the atrocities of the past like for example Queen Isabella I of Castile who violently converted Jews and Muslim, and funded Christopher Columbus’ expedition to the Caribbean. An inconvenient truth feminists would like to hide is that women were staunch supporters of slavery, colonialism and apartheid, and at times they were active participants. 

I personally have been more abused by women than men. When I say abuse I refer to both physically and emotional abuse, of which I regard emotional abuse as the most destructive of all. All men who abused me or tried to abuse me did it through physically means which allowed me to fight back once I was strong enough. However, being abused through psychological means, if it starts at a very young age, shatters you self-esteem which fills you with self-doubt. Doubting yourself holds you back and literally over time mentally enslaves you. My experience is that women are masters in abusing men emotionally.

Part of my life I grew up in a monastery and the nuns used to employ both emotional and physical abuse. If we were naughty we were made out to be sinners (emotional abuse) and had to kneel on gravel for long periods of times (physical abuse).  Luckily I only stayed there for two years of which I am grateful because if I stayed there for longer I do not think I would have recovered, like many others. This is one of just the many incidences of abuse I experienced at the hands of women.

After reading this I hope men would start a process of de-demonising themselves and speak out against the abuse they experience at the hands of women. I know it is hard for any men to speak out against abuse because it is harmful to their egos. However, if this demonising of men continues there will be any egos to protect.

And the winner is … patron client relationships

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.

Practice What You Preached!

Sometimes people use terms such as good governance without knowing what it means. If it is incorrectly used in a conversation, it is still forgivable but when it is used as a campaign strategy and you are transgressor of that value system (good governance) it is plain stupid.

Two of the candidates who are running for University Council through the Convocation are using good governance and academic excellence as their campaign strategy. This is to infer that the current leadership of UWC do not adhere to the principles of good governance and academic excellence.

However, before they point to anyone else they must have a look at what they have been doing the past nine years as the Convocation leadership. They must ask themselves whether they adhered to the principles and norms of good governance.

Central to good governance is openness and transparency. Since I joined this institution in 2007 I never saw them adhering to these principles.  For example, never before did they inform members of the UWC Convocation about the workings of the Convocation.

They also neglected to inform members of Convocation that two members of Convocation can be elected to the University Council. Never before did they explain the election process for both Council and for the Executive of Convocation. 

They have rather kept the information to themselves which placed them in a privileged situation. Good governance is a liberal democratic ideal which advocates for access to information. Something they neglected.  

With regards to academic excellence I have never heard of a campaign or programme by the Convocation that focuses of academic excellence. In actual fact, I did not hear of any campaign in the past 8 years that was projected towards the student population. Surprisingly the people who are campaigning for academic excellence are the same people in power for the past nine years and have put themselves up for re-election.

Now please tell me how you can preach good governance but you are also a transgressor of the same value system. Please tell me how is it possible to hold academic excellence dear if you never valued the UWC student population.

And for those of you who are wilfully to be misled by these individuals please go ahead and follow them, protest on their command, drag your names through the mud on their command and maybe just maybe, will they give you a job once you completed your studies. However, I will not count on it.

Jakes Gerwel's Dream Deferred

It is time to re-align ourselves at the University of the Western Cape to the vision of the late Prof Jakes Gerwel. The leadership of Prof O'Connell the past couple of years led UWC through its darkest days and took us to new height,s but somewhere along the lines we lost track of who we are.

This became apparent with the Kovacs issue in 2012. It was the students who first noticed a deviation from our ideological stance which is also one of the reasons we protested in 2012. However, the university soon quashed the protests and in the process paint protesting students as irrational.

But we were not irrational because our argument was and still is that Kovacs deviates from being the 'home of the intellectual left', because being the home of the intellectual left means that it will always has a place for those students who come from the working class. In this regard, Kovacs have split the once coherent residence population into two: those who have and those who do not have.

Thus, the current battle at the university must be seen in that regard. It is a battle between two groups of petite bourgeoisie. Both groups want to have control over the production of knowledge which in today's day and age means control over production. Both do not have the interest of the working class student at heart.

What we see now is a university which has lost its vision and identity and have forgotten about the plight of those who they serve - the working class student. It is thus clear the dream of Prof Gerwel is postponed and it is only us (those who still believe in the dream) who can re-align the institution to the vision that made it.

We can start of by electing a Convocation this Saturday, 7 June 2014, who for once represent the current generation of working class students. We cannot allow a generation who are stuck in the past to control all the decision making structures at this university. It is time for change and it only those of us who are brave enough who will vote for change this coming Saturday at the AGM of the Convocation. Please do not make the mistake by hoping those who control this university will throw you a bone. You know you are more worth than to be bribed with an exam pad.

The ANC and the myth of the Money Tree

I do not think members and leaders of the ANC know where public money comes from. This is clearly visible in how they have been defending the ANC since the 2014 election campaign started.
Firstly, it is visible from the rhetorical responses of party members. For example, if someone said the party has meant nothing for them since 1994 the defence of party members would be by pointing out all of the services that have been delivered since 1994 and to make matters worse they do it in an arrogantly manner which imply that you need to be grateful. What they normally forget is that they are not doing South Africans a favour they (the ANC led government) is just fulfilling the social contract they signed-up for. The social contract works like this. Citizens elect a government who will use their money (the public money/taxes) to deliver services citizens need. The ANC and its members usually see it the other way around. The ANC promises certain services and in the process not just only denying the social contract but also make it as they are doing citizens a favour, which is all wrong.

Secondly, it is visible in how the ANC led government spend public funds. Every year the Auditor General is reporting about the increasing number of wasteful expenditure that amounts to 100s of millions of Rand. Once elected into government they starting to living the life they always dreamed of - the life of the Kardashians. They spent public funds like it grow on a tree somewhere in the garden of the Union Buildings or Nkandla which is protected by the SANDF.
Thirdly, it is visible in the way they (the President included) defend Nkandla and other corruption scandals. So far the total cost of the security upgrades to Zuma's private residence Nkandla are sold to the public as the President did nothing wrong. They also have the attitude as they do not know what the big fuss is about and that it is only over R240 million. One ANC member on Facebook even said that we think the President's house must look like that of our fathers' and if it was a white president there would have been no fuss. The issue they clearly miss is that it is R240 of public money; money that was collected in taxes from working South Africans; the ones who wake up every morning at five o'clock, who have to take two trains just to get to work on time and that for less R6000 which in the end of the day is taxed. It is heart breaking for any tax paying South African to see that kind of ignorance.

Their ignorance is based on their level of understanding - they really do not know where public money come from and what people have to go through just to make their contribution to a better life for all.

In their defence I do not think they have a clue where this money came from. I have to be honest it took me a whole semester studying public finance to fully comprehend this. For those ANC members reading this (please share this with the President), it normally works like this. We elect a parliament which is a representation of ordinary South Africans who is responsible for collecting and spending taxes. Sometimes some of these duties are delegated to more technically equipped institutions like SARS and the National Treasury. Based on the plans and the needs of the people tax targets are set every year. This is where things get interesting. The target will determine how much tax each South African must pay. SARS is tasked to collect these taxes. The task of the National Treasury is to provide Parliament (who is supposed to represent us) with a forecast of expenditure over the next couple years. This usually take place in October. Once Parliament is satisfied with the forecast it will task the National Treasury to draw up a budget for the next coming year which is usually tabled in February during the budget speech. After the speech, Parliament will look at the budget, debate it and approve it. It is only after this that public money can be used (which was collected the previous year) towards the services planned for in the budget.

Thus, it is time for us to re-orientate ourselves. It is time to place us at the receiving end of the social contract which is called democracy. We elect a government because we want them to spend our money so that it benefits us and not them. The ANC and no other political party can claim the right to that money, it is not theirs, it is ours. If the ANC want money they must plant a money tree in Luthuli House or Nkandla and harvest it every year. They can ask the MK veterans to protect it.