Dear Comrades, This is an excellent piece of work.
On 10/29/10, Dominic.Tweedie <[email protected]> wrote: > > ANC Today > > > *On the Information Bill and the Tribunal* > > > *Khulu Mbatha, ANC Today, Johannesburg, 29 October 2010* > > Shall we enter the debate? What debate? There was no debate. What we > heard were admonishing gestures to the initiators of the bill and the > call for a regulatory institution. In itself there is nothing wrong with > such behaviour and reaction except that it leaves no room for real > debate and discourse. > > It is therefore difficult to deal with the merits or demerits of the > proposals. I hope once the dust is settled a normal discourse will > ensue. Let me allow myself to tackle an offshoot borne out of the > hullabaloo. And this is the fact that some of the critics had the > audacity to challenge the authenticity of the African National Congress > and government leadership without even dealing directly with the issues. > > They accused the ANC of acting irresponsibly and misrepresenting the > founders of the organisation and those who gave their lives to the > struggle and freedom. Should we be concerned? Yes, certainly! > > This does not mean that the ANC can never be challenged. The truth is > that there was no relationship. But what this clearly demonstrated was > that no debate could ever be neutral or satisfactory to everyone. The > victory over Apartheid and all its ramifications did not imply the end > of contradictions and pure manifestations of hostilities. The real > victory over oppression and exploitation was actually the beginning of > the struggle for economic emancipation and to a great extent the control > of the mind. > > We all know that the media is vital in this and I must underline that it > is never neutral as long as societies are divided along classes and > other divisions. The current debate exposes the fact that there are new > forms and new weapons being used to influence the hearts and control the > minds. The difficulties of transition and the influence of those > wielding massive resources, both financially and socially, can sometimes > be uncomfortable for those who thought that after Apartheid things would > run smooth for them. Hayikhona! > > The English Philip Atkinson in his article "The Inspiration And Nature > Of Democracy" writes that, "Whenever the notion of democracy is > criticised contemporary citizens ...often ignore the logic of the > arguments but simply reiterate that ancient Greek civilization proved > the value of democracy." > > A few centuries ago the founders of liberal and later socialist ideas > warned that universal suffrage in a country even with a majority of > working class democrats does not lead to full freedom. Many forces whose > real interests lie in maintaining the present status quo know very well > that with freedom comes more demands for equal participation not only in > the political life of our state but in the running of the economy. If > this reality can be influenced to go a certain direction they will leave > no stone unturned to do so. > > This phase in our struggle, the establishment of democracy (liberal > democracy to be specific), was "an unavoidable necessity", but very > crucial and central for the forces of change. It is the only state form > in which the next decisive struggle for economic and ideological > emancipation can be fought out. What you have today can never be the end > of the struggle. > > The masses of our people must continue to want to improve their living > conditions. The conditions, under which the majority of our people live > in, can never be regarded as satisfactory and befitting a struggle > fought with so many lives. They must have a share of what South Africa > has today and in the future. > > The collective social agreements produced through the peaceful > negotiations of 1994 did not mean that those agreements (some were meant > to protect the minorities) can never be improved to suite today's > demands and realities. In the same way the ideological struggle did not > seize to exist. > > If this reading of facts is correct, it is therefore not surprising to > see that nowadays it has become fashionable to oppose anything that the > ANC or the government proposes, even before the merits or demerits are > debated. This is not surprising. In the almost 100 years of the ANC's > existence the organisation has seen some analysts making a career out of > attacking the ANC. > > What is important is that the ANC must not be frustrated by this. It is > all intentional and part of the contest. That is why some even declare > upfront that they don't even want to engage in debating these matters. > > Because the ANC has the majority in parliament they suggest that these > matters must never be taken to parliament. "Hence the suggestion that > the media should account to parliament -where the ruling party has a > majority. If that is the case, who then holds Parliament accountable..." > Ido Lekota raises the question and then suggests that they are the > chosen ones who "must hold the ANC accountable" (Sowetan Thursday, > August 12, 2010). > > They mobilise everyone, business, church leaders, NGO's, agencies in > other countries to tell our government that they must stop this debate! > No! Stop discussions! No debate! No discussions! > > Is there a democratic way of finding out from the public if that's what > everyone wants? Or should we perhaps ask for help from media houses > overseas or governments of other countries on what is acceptable or not > acceptable? > > Actually some analysts and editors have suggested that this ANC > government must never suggest anything whatsoever. "If you were a > brilliant freedom fighter, does that guarantee you would also be an > exemplary champion of freedom?" asks Eusebius McKaiser, a political > analyst and an associate at the Wits Centre for Ethics. > > And his answer is poignant: "Liberation politics and ethos have no > rightful place in a multiparty, liberal and open democratic society." > This is so absurd and hypocritical. But there are reasons for this > skewed logic. > > To further illustrate this absurdity one argument was raised in this > fashion. "I also have a problem with the terminology used. A media > tribunal to me has a Stalinist ring to it", (Business Day, Thursday 19 > August 2010). > > What does one say when only insult and abuse is hurled at government and > the ANC. In fact if the founders of the ANC were to be brought back to > life they would only blame the ANC for this state of affairs. They had > forewarned that the organisation of the oppressed needed its own > mouthpiece. No "free press" will stand in as a substitute. > > As I indicated above some critics even went out of way to cite > historical events out of an epoch they occurred and presented these as > if it is events that occurred yesteryear. > > Yes, they quoted facts out of context, digging for citations from ANC > leaders, from its founders up to Mandela, just to demonstrate that they > know this organisation and its struggle better. > > If you explain historical events in such a manner that they can be > understood to support flimsy arguments - it is called tomfoolery. The > point being made of course is that these current ANC leaders don't know > what they are talking about. > > A certain Jacob Dlamini asks, "How well does the ANC understand its > history? (Business Day, Thursday 19 August 2010). People like him should > be reminded that many of the leaders and founders of the ANC were > journalist, editors and indeed distinguished writers in their own right. > > They led by example. The first President and the first Secretary-General > of the ANC (then known as the South African Native National Congress) Dr > John Langalibalele Dube and Solomon Tshekisho Plaatje were editors of > their own papers, Ilanga lase Natal and Koranta ea Becoana. > > They understood the importance of journalism more than the crop we have > around us today. More so to argue in general terms and say they were > fighting for the "freedom of the press" and would have opposed the > proposal of establishing a tribunal is misrepresentation, misleading and > disingenuous. > > The colonial powers had diminished any hope of ever regarding African > people as having any rights whatsoever, never mind being the real owners > of the land. These Africans were fighting for the African people to have > their own mouthpiece, their own voice so to speak. Now to come up today > and display ignorance to these facts is really like having forty winks > during day time. > > They were fighting colonialism and subjugation. They were fighting > against cultural domination and Anglicization! They, more than anyone, > understood the trappings of the new culture. They realised that culture, > i.e. the values, norms and attitudes in society, is never neutral. This > was not an ordinary civil rights concern! > > Education under colonial rule was the most useful method of implementing > cultural dominion and Anglicization. Before 1820 all colonial governors > especially in the Cape, attempted as recorded in history, without much > success though, to ensure that English was used more generally in > schools. What for? > > Because this was "the best means of making the English language more > general in the Colony and improving the manners and morals of the > people", said Goulburn, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Colonies, > in 1822. > > In July 1822 the Somerset's Language Proclamation was published. > "English would be the sole language used in government offices from 1 > January 1825 and in law courts from 1 January, 1827; correspondence with > the Colonial secretary in Cape Town had to be conducted in English as > from 1 January 1823." > > This process affected everyone in the Cape Colony. But many "Dutch > colonists became bilingual in the course of time, but retained their > allegiance to their language. They came to accept British democracy, > British political liberalism, the British Crown and the Imperial > connection, but they did not lose their identity". > > This is one of the motivations Africans wanted to have their own papers > in their own languages. It was a strong political persuasion. There is > no space to write about, nor compare the rise of Afrikaner nationalism > and African nationalism. The first African writers, journalists, > ministers, teachers, clerks and politicians (and to many all these > professions were implanted in one person) were sons or grandsons of > tribalists, chiefs and products of mission schools. > > Rev. Tiyo Soga was an outstanding product of this time (1829 - 1871). > His father was the advisor or councillor to Gqaika (Ngqika). He was a > graduate of the Lovedale Missionary Institution, the Free Church > seminary in Glasgow and the Glasgow University. He was the first > ordained African minister of the United Presbyterian Church with a > degree to his name. He married a Scot and returned to South Africa in > 1857. He translated The Pilgrim's Progress into Xhosa, composed hymns > and revised the Xhosa Bible. A 'perfect gentlemen', a 'loyal subject of > the Queen' and a 'noble missionary of the Cross' are some of the > attributes in his obituary. > > As Jack and Ray Simons remind us, "The missionary was a bearer of > British culture as well as a teacher of the gospel. In both capacities > he actively opposed traditional institutions such as chieftainship, the > ancestor cult, the practice of magic, polygyny and bridewealth, that > kept the tribesmen away from the church". The missionary sided with the > colonists on all matters of state. > > The loyalties and allegiances of Africans trained in missionaries, on > the other hand, were divided between their people (their origins) and > the church, to which they owed their religion, education and livelihood. > > In the seventies (19th century) a new trend developed. Most of the > educated Africans who found work in government, commercial, legal and > printing establishments, were able to free themselves from dependency on > the missionary. They became religious and political leaders in their own > right. This phenomenon was strengthened and became more profound during > the process of expansion that Britain adopted after the discovery of > diamonds and gold. > > By the end of the wars of dispossession and the South African war, > Africans were no longer passive players in the making of the history of > South Africa. Again as Ray and Jack Simons put it, "The struggle for > liberation would from then on be fought within the common society by men > able to wield the colonist's own weapons of education, propaganda, > political organization and the vote. Leadership passed to teachers, > ministers and others like them..." > > This is the period when men like John Tengo Jabavu (1851 - 1921) came to > play a vital role. Here was a leader among progressive Africans, a > certificated teacher, a lay preacher, who gets appointed as editor of > the Lovedale mission journal Isigidimi Sama Xosa (Xhosa Express) in > 1881. By the way he only matriculated in 1883 and historically was the > second African to do so. Again as recorded by our history books he went > on to become the editor of the first independent African newspaper, Imvo > Zabantsundu (African Opinion). > > It is among these Africans that we had leaders who went on to establish > an organisation called the South African Native National Congress in > 1912, which was later named the African National Congress. > > As the late Comrade Francis Meli put it in his South Africa belongs to > us: A History of the ANC, "The first National Executive of the ANC is > interesting in many respects: it consisted of four ministers of > religion, lawyers, an editor, a building contractor, a teacher and > estate agent, an interpreter and Native Labour Agent (who recruited > African mineworkers). > > These were people who had gone to mission schools; five of them had also > studied abroad. They were prominent in local political organizations, in > the African press, and church circles; some had already become national > figures. They were relatively young - in their twenties and early > thirties. The four provinces were well represented on the executive." > > It is therefore important that we engage in debate in a sincere manner. > There is no harm listening to what others have to say. Although the > teaching of history cannot be neutral too, we must refrain from > falsifying facts. > > In the same way we must pay attention and listen to the founders of > CASAC, the Council for the Advancement of the South African > Constitution. They are telling everyone that the only thing to do now is > to "defend" one issue only. That's why they established an issue-driven > structure and organisation. There are many similarities to COPE. > > But back to the constitution, our society is in constant change and when > change takes place everything changes except change itself. In the > sixteen years since our constitutional and liberal democracy was > established, there is so much that has achieved. > > At the same time there is so much still to be done. This is why I find > it amazing that one would just want to deal with one issue. If "CASAC is > a new organisation initiated by progressive people", sooner or later > they will realise how easy it is to be conservative while preaching the > contrary. > > This is based on the established truth that as society develops, as we > "consolidate and deepen our constitutional democracy" (borrowed from > CASAC's founding document), societal changes that result from such > deepening of democracy will as an inevitability require changes in the > constitution so as to complement the new circumstances. > > So it is fallacy to argue that our constitution and any other > constitution for that matter, including that of the Federal Republic of > Germany - from which we borrowed a lot - cannot be amended. Those > familiar with the European Union and its organs will attest to this fact. > > But this change is not constitutionally driven. The motive forces for > change are found in the actions and activities of living human beings in > their interaction with nature and with each other. They are constantly > changing their environment to make it suitable and better for living. > > Politically speaking that is what we refer to when we argue that the > masses of our people are fighting for a better life. Our people are no > longer oppressed. No, they are involved in real and not imaginary > struggles so that the generations that come after us do not experience > the horrors of the past. > > It is therefore pleasing to note that the heat has cooled down. The > Press Council of South Africa is reviewing its constitution, the SA > Press Code and its complaints procedure. The government recently met > with SANEF to engage on these issues. > > * Dr Khulu Mbatha is a Special Advisor to the Deputy President > > > > *From: http://www.anc.org.za/docs/anctoday/2010/at40.htm#art2* > ** > > > > -- > You are subscribed. This footer can help you. > Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to > this message. > You can visit the group WEB SITE at > http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery > options, pages, files and membership. > To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . > You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to > put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to > this address (repeat): [email protected] . > -- Cedric Sabelo Gina NUMSA President NUMSA Head Office 153 Bree Street Newtown, Johannesburg 2021 Tel: 011-6891700 Fax: 011-8344320 Mobile: +27836335381 -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
