Umsebenzi Online, Volume 14, No. 43, 29 October 2015
In this issue:
* Eusebius McKaiser's liberal propaganda is not a debate: The media
must level the playing field instead of running negativity in their opinion
pieces, columns and letters section without offering the other side of the
story any opportunity
Red Alert:
Eusebius McKaiser's liberal propaganda is not a debate
The media must level the playing field instead of running negativity in
their opinion pieces, columns and letters section without offering the other
side of the story any opportunity
BY PHATSE JUSTICE PIITSO
The recent legitimate student mobilisation against fee increases highlighted
some of the problematic features in the South African media. This comes at
the time when as a country we are still engaging on how to go about
achieving media transformation. Some of the newspapers, among them The
Citizen and The Star, ran opinion pieces, columns and letters that
criticised the ANC-led government, the ANC and the SACP. They did not allow
any opportunity, in this sections, for that golden rule of justice, fairness
and balance: audi alteram partem - meaning hear the other side, or let the
other side be heard as well. It is worse that they did not care whether the
criticisms were valid, or whether they were based on valid information and
not distortions. This is characteristic of a biased political campaign.
Eusebius McKaiser, who in the process exposed his ignorance about the
architecture and content of South Africa's higher education laws, had the
audacity, using The Star, to try and present to us as the readers a
"lecture" about how to conduct a debate. Yet he enjoyed the monopoly of
space in The Star through his series of columns or opinion pieces. The
newspaper did not offer any opportunity to those who disagree with his
liberal scapegoating of the Minister of Higher Education and Training,
Comrade Blade Nzimande, to express their views.
What type of a debate is this by McKaiser?
It is common knowledge that the laws in South Africa reserve university
governance, curriculum setting and administration decision-making powers to
councils, senates, and vice chancellors as part of the executive management
of universities. The Minister of Higher Education and Training is prohibited
- by law - from making such decisions. This is called institutional
autonomy, an instrument that universities have used to increase fees.
Neither the Minister nor the government as a whole increase fees at
universities or colleges.
Someone who is not ignorant about higher education in South Africa knows
that the Minister has been taken to court by universities using and
defending their autonomy. The court agreed, thus further cementing the
restriction of the power not only of the Minister but of the government as a
whole to intervene in universities on governance, curriculum setting and
administration decision-making. McKaiser's call that the Minister should
have made those decisions not only revealed his ignorance but is tantamount
to demanding that the Minister defy the law and put himself in contempt of
court.
If McKaiser was not ignorant, he would be aware that since Dr Blade Nzimande
became the Minister, the Higher Education Laws Amendment Act was initiated
and promulgated to introduce measures setting the scene to address the
problem. Again, an organisation of university vice chancellors, called
Higher Education South Africa, obtained a legal opinion determined to
reverse this amended law.
Where was McKaiser when this happened?
Certainly not active in further and higher education and training.
Debating alone without any knowledge of what was going on in the field of
higher education, McKaiser sought to blame the Minister, the ANC-led
government, the ANC and the SACP. All of this without The Star offering
equal opportunity to any contrary view, thus allowing disinformation or
one-sided view to be fed to the public. McKaiser seems to think that saying
wrong things about a minister will result in his or her removal by the
ANC-led government. Our ANC-led national liberation movement and alliance do
not follow that liberal style of work. Neither is the SACP afraid of it!
If McKaiser was not ignorant, he would recognise that further steps were
being taken to deal with the problems of the use of institutional autonomy,
which is often conflated with academic freedom, to perpetuate the legacy of
race and class exclusion and resist transformation. The President's
announcement on this question did not come in a vacuum.
In the advent of the latest student mobilisation against fee increases by
universities, Minister Nzimande had convened the second higher education
transformation summit to deepen the work of transformation in universities
and colleges. The use of institutional autonomy to exclude the children of
the workers and the poor who cannot afford exorbitant fees and resist
transformation was discussed at the summit. It was made clear that further
amendments to our post-school education and training laws were necessary to
push the work of dealing with the problem to its logical conclusion.
Performing the work means that the Minister is "absent". This is what
McKaiser, who further wants to advise us about debate, wants the readers of
his undebated opinions in The Star to believe. Learners will fail if they
were to follow McKaiser's advices published by The Star about the conduct of
debate. At school, it is the basic rule of fairness in every debate,
organised into affirmative and negative sides, to give the two sides an
equal opportunity to state their side of the story and to respond to what is
said about them and their views.
In contrast, McKaiser's "debate" in The Star is co-ordinated to deliver only
one side of the story to the readers, thus denying them access to the other
side of the story - and about which wrong things are said. McKaiser must not
create any illusions that this unfair talk about others - characteristic of
a politics of mamgobhozi - is a debate. One-way information dissemination
which might as well be disinformation, if not political agitation without
allowing any debate, without offering space with equal prominence to those
who differ to air their views, is not a debate.
This style of work is characteristic of a propaganda.
Let us take a look at it further in The Citizen. This newspaper has been
very active during the recent student mobilisation in running negativity in
its opinion and letters section against the Minister, the ANC-led
government, the ANC and the SACP.
For example, on 23 October The Citizen ran a letter by one Bhekithemba
Mbatha concerning an SACP statement released on 20 October. In the
statement, the Party welcomed government intervention on the problem of
university fee increases. On 20 October, the Minister had met with
university student representatives, vice chancellors and council
chairpersons to map the way forward.
In his letter, Bhekithemba alleged that the SACP welcomed a "6%" fee
increase. Completely untrue, which is why this has to be clarified! The
Citizen did not offer any opportunity for this clarification.
There is no mention of any "6%" in the said SACP statement. The statement in
fact reads: "In particular, the SACP welcomes the resolution that there must
be meaningful consultation in universities, as opposed to unilateralism, and
that no fee increases to be agreed to by the stakeholders from these
negotiations must be above inflation". This statement, which writer debased
from its context, was developed against the backdrop where there was never
such an intervention since our democratic breakthrough in 1994. Bhekitemba
ignored the truth when he invented his "6%" and unfairly attributed it to
the SACP - and, also, individually, to the person of the Party's National
Spokesperson, Comrade Alex Mashilo. This is un-comradely "engagement",
unscientific criticism and nothing but a display of childishness to seek
attention.
The operative principles "meaningful consultation", "as opposed to
unilateralism", "to be agreed upon", "negotiations" advocated by the Party's
statement are fundamental to democratisation of decision-making in
universities. When he invented his "6%" and attributed it to the SACP,
Bhekithemba ignored all of these principles that are clearly spelt out in
the SACP's statement. He ignored, along with the principles, the minimum of
zero per cent increase as presupposed in the lower co-ordinate of the
framework. The Citizen was not interested in printing the true side of the
story for the readers to judge for themselves.
The SACP supported the student mobilisation against the exorbitant
university fee increases. Further, the Party took part in key processes
within the ANC-led alliance leading to government announcing the zero per
cent fee increase for 2016. In fact, the last statement issued by the SACP
even before the announcement was made is categorical about zero per cent fee
increase for 2016. The statements reads:
"The SACP affirms the legitimacy of the present student struggles against
exorbitant university fee increases. It is overwhelmingly the deserving
children of the workers and the poor who cannot afford the high cost of
access to universities and colleges, who are being excluded on financial
grounds. The SACP therefore makes a call for a moratorium on university and
college fee increases for 2016".
The Independent Media Group to which The Star belongs was fair in covering
the statement.
Did The Citizen bother to cover the statement?
Not at all, it imposed a complete blackout of the SACP statements while
making space for the statements to be criticised unfairly and
unscientifically.
The SACP has no problem with being criticised, for as long as the criticism
is fair and in the context where there is balance in terms of diversity of
perspective and equal opportunity for the Party's views to be covered. The
SACP has no problem with accurate and scientific criticism.
The press has an important role to play in levelling the playing field,
rather than apply blinkers to the eyes of the readers and thus block the
bigger picture out of their sight with the effect of narrowing their
worldview.
* Cde Phatse Justice Piitso is the former Ambassador to Cuba and the
former provincial secretary of the SACP writing this article on his personal
capacity
Umsebenzi Online is the online voice of the South African working class
--
UMSEBENZI ONLINE IS THE VOICE OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN WORKING CLASS
_____________________________________________________________________
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Umsebenzi Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, just send email to
[email protected]
For more options, archives, pages and files, visit the group web site at
http://groups.google.com/group/umsebenzi-online?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Umsebenzi Online" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
