Freedom celebration is an important aspect of nation building that cannot be left only to annual Union Buildings festivities, but should be deliberately weaved as a national project. The ‘dual’ history of South Africa often characterised as white and black history compounds the quest for a national meaning of freedom. Understanding the meaning of freedom in South Africa is fast becoming an elusive project for the organised political coalitions, unless if they act in their capacity as government, albeit with a profoundly underperforming sub-context
Post 1994 government has, through its constitutional and legislative provisions, occupied the historically battered role of shaping a ‘non-racial’ South African nation. Despite Constitution’s instruct to ‘adopt the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights’, the practical task of building a ‘South African Nation’ remains one of the most elusive assignments this government has ever undertaken. The elusiveness is partly because of the heterogeneous nature of the South African society, particularly its history.
The decolonisation history of South Africa has assumed a status of being determinate in the definition of what Freedom means to ‘South Africans’. Freedom from colonialism in all its forms (i.e. mainstream colonialism and that of a special type) is today the most foregrounded criteria to define freedom day celebrations in Africa. The manner in which ‘liberation’ was attained in Africa is a key to the definition of how a post liberation government will relate to ‘colonial’ history. Whilst other countries celebrate these days as founder’s, constitutional and independence days, the criterion to designate these days remains very much part of those societies’ nation building project.
In South Africa, decolonisation has taken a two stage process. Strictly speaking, the first ‘decolonisation’ breakthrough happened in 1961 when the then Nationalist Party under Dr HF Verwoerd led South Africa out of the clutches of British ‘dominance and colonisation’. The long held Afrikaner Nationalist ideal of establishing the Republic of South Africa was achieved on 31st May 1961. The precision with which vestiges of British domination were removed and replaced with Afrikaner Monuments indicated an ‘ethnic inspired national’ agenda to create a sustainable ‘volk’ at all costs.
Notwithstanding, it is also true that the reasons for decolonisation from ‘the Commonwealth’ was informed by the latter’s resolve to fight the ‘racism’ a ‘decolonised’ South Africa represented as well as the need to create political space to execute one of the most revered social holocaust projects by any ‘race based political movement’; Apartheid. It is this reasons and the promise of a ‘South Africa that belongs to all who live in it’ that propelled a ‘secondary anti-colonial’ struggle that culminated in the 1994 Constitutional dispensation.
The second breakthrough happened in 1994 when an ANC-led liberation movement repudiated Apartheid and by extension ‘colonialism of a special type’ (CST) through a negotiated settlement. CST is a form of colonialism where the colonised and the coloniser share the same borders. As a result of this understanding of CST, the ANC-led liberation movement positioned itself as a political force that championed an ideal of a South Africa that belongs to all who live in it. The ‘policy making’ and not implementation precision with which the ‘statutory’ vestiges of Apartheid colonialism were removed and replaced with ‘non-racial’ alternatives, albeit restitutive in character, indicated a ‘nation building’ agenda to create a sustainable South African society
The challenge of these decolonisation breakthroughs is that they both created victors without clear losers thus redefining the landscape of how political heroes and dates should be celebrated. The nostalgia that often accompanies the celebration of political events, particularly in societies where there is clear struggle victor in the minds of everybody, is in such cases a casualty with catastrophic nation building consequences. The ‘nation’ as a supposed beneficiary of the decolonisation project remains impoverished by the reigning victor/loser ambience.
A nation is defined as the largest society of people united by a common culture and consciousness This definition elevates to prominence the importance of a nation occupying a common territory so that its members have common interests of place and land where its vital binding force is variously derived from a strong sense of its own history and its special culture. A nation is therefore human in character; and because all humans (nations) are both cultural and historical, there is no nation without some form of ‘agreed culture and history’. South Africa’s history should and must therefore define its nation-building endeavour, lest it invests in some future social rupture.
The greatest possessions of a nation should be a common rich heritage of memories, good and bad, as well as an agreement detailing a desire to live together and make the most of the joint inheritance as bequeathed by past generations. The importance of recognising, and sometimes at the cost of discounting some of the group-pride emanating from past tribal, ethnic or ideological heroic feats, as a larger society that a nation possesses a common stock of thought and feelings acquired during the course of common (territorial) history should be elevated only to build a mental homogeneity about going forward.
The task of building a nation becomes therefore an emotional and intellectual assignment procuring for a togetherness that must be able to transcend established social patterns, rituals and socio-political stereotypes created by that society’s past and perceived future. Since humanity will always, and notoriously so, be prejudiced in its memory, the need to reconcile a society’s memory of its past with an envisaged future should form the basis for the legitimisation of any coalition of interests organised to access the administration of commonly pooled national resources.
The April 27 Freedom Day celebrations should be organised within the context of creating a collective memory about our past. What we saw in past celebrations where some political coalitions chose to organise a parallel celebration under the banner of their political parties defeats what some of them purport to represent. The legitimacy of advocating for the independence of the judiciary, if so carelessly executed, will always position the predominantly white and Apartheid era affirmed legal minds as an emerging opposition lobby, especially given our recent legal battles and court rulings involving in the main ‘ruling party’ activists. It would have been ideal if the notion of ‘their celebration’ and ‘our celebration’ was seen to be discouraged by the opposition, unless they represent a ‘non-South African’ constituency.
It is now becoming convention that the vector of identity in South Africa remains race, and this is despite it taking an added significance because of the history of racism and discrimination(s). It should therefore be a responsibility of all political coalitions to redefine their campaign strategies to rid them of the ‘race demonisation’ rhetoric disguised in many a metaphor. It is also critical that these formations should respect national days and demand of their followers to observe some protocol during such events. If we accept that being part of a ‘nation’ (volk) is a core element of identity without which humankind simply cannot exist; then South Africans may not be existing unless we all embrace the ‘nation building’ project.
EK dink maar net
Post 1994 government has, through its constitutional and legislative provisions, occupied the historically battered role of shaping a ‘non-racial’ South African nation. Despite Constitution’s instruct to ‘adopt the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights’, the practical task of building a ‘South African Nation’ remains one of the most elusive assignments this government has ever undertaken. The elusiveness is partly because of the heterogeneous nature of the South African society, particularly its history.
The decolonisation history of South Africa has assumed a status of being determinate in the definition of what Freedom means to ‘South Africans’. Freedom from colonialism in all its forms (i.e. mainstream colonialism and that of a special type) is today the most foregrounded criteria to define freedom day celebrations in Africa. The manner in which ‘liberation’ was attained in Africa is a key to the definition of how a post liberation government will relate to ‘colonial’ history. Whilst other countries celebrate these days as founder’s, constitutional and independence days, the criterion to designate these days remains very much part of those societies’ nation building project.
In South Africa, decolonisation has taken a two stage process. Strictly speaking, the first ‘decolonisation’ breakthrough happened in 1961 when the then Nationalist Party under Dr HF Verwoerd led South Africa out of the clutches of British ‘dominance and colonisation’. The long held Afrikaner Nationalist ideal of establishing the Republic of South Africa was achieved on 31st May 1961. The precision with which vestiges of British domination were removed and replaced with Afrikaner Monuments indicated an ‘ethnic inspired national’ agenda to create a sustainable ‘volk’ at all costs.
Notwithstanding, it is also true that the reasons for decolonisation from ‘the Commonwealth’ was informed by the latter’s resolve to fight the ‘racism’ a ‘decolonised’ South Africa represented as well as the need to create political space to execute one of the most revered social holocaust projects by any ‘race based political movement’; Apartheid. It is this reasons and the promise of a ‘South Africa that belongs to all who live in it’ that propelled a ‘secondary anti-colonial’ struggle that culminated in the 1994 Constitutional dispensation.
The second breakthrough happened in 1994 when an ANC-led liberation movement repudiated Apartheid and by extension ‘colonialism of a special type’ (CST) through a negotiated settlement. CST is a form of colonialism where the colonised and the coloniser share the same borders. As a result of this understanding of CST, the ANC-led liberation movement positioned itself as a political force that championed an ideal of a South Africa that belongs to all who live in it. The ‘policy making’ and not implementation precision with which the ‘statutory’ vestiges of Apartheid colonialism were removed and replaced with ‘non-racial’ alternatives, albeit restitutive in character, indicated a ‘nation building’ agenda to create a sustainable South African society
The challenge of these decolonisation breakthroughs is that they both created victors without clear losers thus redefining the landscape of how political heroes and dates should be celebrated. The nostalgia that often accompanies the celebration of political events, particularly in societies where there is clear struggle victor in the minds of everybody, is in such cases a casualty with catastrophic nation building consequences. The ‘nation’ as a supposed beneficiary of the decolonisation project remains impoverished by the reigning victor/loser ambience.
A nation is defined as the largest society of people united by a common culture and consciousness This definition elevates to prominence the importance of a nation occupying a common territory so that its members have common interests of place and land where its vital binding force is variously derived from a strong sense of its own history and its special culture. A nation is therefore human in character; and because all humans (nations) are both cultural and historical, there is no nation without some form of ‘agreed culture and history’. South Africa’s history should and must therefore define its nation-building endeavour, lest it invests in some future social rupture.
The greatest possessions of a nation should be a common rich heritage of memories, good and bad, as well as an agreement detailing a desire to live together and make the most of the joint inheritance as bequeathed by past generations. The importance of recognising, and sometimes at the cost of discounting some of the group-pride emanating from past tribal, ethnic or ideological heroic feats, as a larger society that a nation possesses a common stock of thought and feelings acquired during the course of common (territorial) history should be elevated only to build a mental homogeneity about going forward.
The task of building a nation becomes therefore an emotional and intellectual assignment procuring for a togetherness that must be able to transcend established social patterns, rituals and socio-political stereotypes created by that society’s past and perceived future. Since humanity will always, and notoriously so, be prejudiced in its memory, the need to reconcile a society’s memory of its past with an envisaged future should form the basis for the legitimisation of any coalition of interests organised to access the administration of commonly pooled national resources.
The April 27 Freedom Day celebrations should be organised within the context of creating a collective memory about our past. What we saw in past celebrations where some political coalitions chose to organise a parallel celebration under the banner of their political parties defeats what some of them purport to represent. The legitimacy of advocating for the independence of the judiciary, if so carelessly executed, will always position the predominantly white and Apartheid era affirmed legal minds as an emerging opposition lobby, especially given our recent legal battles and court rulings involving in the main ‘ruling party’ activists. It would have been ideal if the notion of ‘their celebration’ and ‘our celebration’ was seen to be discouraged by the opposition, unless they represent a ‘non-South African’ constituency.
It is now becoming convention that the vector of identity in South Africa remains race, and this is despite it taking an added significance because of the history of racism and discrimination(s). It should therefore be a responsibility of all political coalitions to redefine their campaign strategies to rid them of the ‘race demonisation’ rhetoric disguised in many a metaphor. It is also critical that these formations should respect national days and demand of their followers to observe some protocol during such events. If we accept that being part of a ‘nation’ (volk) is a core element of identity without which humankind simply cannot exist; then South Africans may not be existing unless we all embrace the ‘nation building’ project.
EK dink maar net
Comments
Post a Comment