(Written on 26 April 2015) Dear All, UCT alumni, friends and acquaintances who know I work at the University of Cape Town (UCT) have asked the question with concern; why did UCT’s management cave so easily when a relatively small group of students went on the rampage? Where will this end? Now that Rhodes has fallen…, will UCT also fall? To answer this question it is necessary to consider what the actual social problem at UCT may be, as well as to consider what it may mean for the university ‘to fall’. There is no doubt that there is a portion of the black student population at UCT who suffer from a sense of cultural alienated at the university. To quote Prof Mohamed Jeebhay’s view published in the special edition of the Monday Monthly, (April 2015), “the changing demographic patterns in the undergraduate student population… has contributed towards the creation of a growing critical mass of black students who articulate an increasing sense of alienation due to the (university’s) pervasive Eurocentric institutional culture”. There is some truth in this statement. My observation is that those students who come through what may be usefully described as a “model-C school experience” adapt readily to the institutional culture of UCT; while those who come from a township or rural school are at first bewildered, but those who cope with the work and adapt to the institutional culture generally go on to success. Unfortunately for those who find the academic work tough, the experience soon turns to something of a cultural shock. As these students battle to recover the characteristic ‘white impatience’ and the occasional expression of indifference with which they are met – sadly something that is part of the institutionalised culture – is interpreted as colonialist, imperialist, racism. The culturally shocked student’s reaction may range from a simple crestfallen shake of the head and a sad “eish wena”; to emotively irrational rants like that by Ntebaleng Morake about a “white supremacist capitalist misogynist system” where “nappy headed Black women (are) suffocated by the shackles that celebrate white supremacy and male entitlement”. (Why decolonising UCT is imperative, even after the fall of Rhodes statue, News24, 15 April 2015). Black students at UCT who experience this sense of cultural dissonance ask themselves, quite rightly, why they feel so uncomfortable at an indigenous institution? After all, they are Africans in Africa at an African university? Why do they feel like foreigners? Who or what is to blame for their state is readily described as colonialist, imperialist, etc., etc. Here I must point out that it is my observation that while the proportion of UCT students who struggle with what is essentially a Western culture is growing, they are not in the majority…, as yet. My observation is that the majority of students – and here I mean the black majority – have embraced what Jeebhay calls the ‘Eurocentric institutional culture’. The clothes they wear, the music to which they listen on their iphones, and the pictures of cult-heroes they paste on the covers of their books are largely Eurocentric. So for example, while a group of some 200 or 300 Rhodes-Must-Fall supporters would be singing and chanting and protesting at selected spots on campus, the significant majority of students, including black students, could be seen to be going about their usual business without much more than a passing interest in the protest. It is clear that the dissonance of some does not resonate with most, but this does not mean that there isn’t a problem that needs to be addressed. As the proportion of UCT students who come from township and rural schools increases the need to assuage this cultural dissonance becomes more urgent. Having acknowledged the cultural difficulty experienced by a growing portion of the black students at the university, what of the perception that in accommodating this cultural change the university will ‘fall’. The perception of the failure of South African institutions has become our daily experience. Eskom was once a financially A-rated, reliable generator of electricity; now we are reminded every other day of its fall as the lights go out. The South African Post Office was once the place where you opened your first savings account; today they cannot be relied upon to deliver a parcel. Even our parliament has been seen to degenerate into the kind of shambles that was once a risible news-item associated with lesser countries. Alumni of the Cape Technikon are presently at pains to point out that they graduated from an institution quite different from what became the Cape Peninsula University of Technology; as industry’s perception of the kaput CPUT’s qualification is a shadow of what the Technikon’s once was. After UCT’s management was seen to cave to the unruly student behaviour shown on national television we are left asking if this is UCT’s fate? What now? Will the management cave to other demands? Will UCT’s alumni also have to make the case that internationally recognised degrees conferred in 2000 are not the equivalent to some down-rated UCT qualification conferred in 2030? Of course, we have to ask ourselves if it really matters whether UCT ‘falls’ or not? Perhaps – to make a dent in the massive unemployment problem facing the country – esoteric research should be trumped by the need for vocational training at any price. From figures published by Stats SA in 2014 we know that in South Africa there is presently some 5 million unemployed black people between the ages of 17 and 24 years; and to this must be added the 16 million who will be coming through the school system over the next 15 years. Over the last five years the black population has grown at a rate around 11%, but the annual economic growth rates have been around 1.5% – so there is no way that a considerable proportion of these people will ever be employed. Under these dire social circumstances, does it matter that the country should have a university among the world’s top 150? (Incidentally, at present rates it is expected that by 2030 whites will make up less than 2% of South Africa’s total population.) So, we probably agree that it is inevitable that UCT should transform into an African university. Now we have to figure out what that means. How is an African university different from what would, worldwide, be considered a university worth the title? As far as I can see, this point has not been clearly communicated simply because it appears to be poorly defined in the minds of the agitators for transformation. Yes, there has been a clear expression of what is broadly described as ‘black pain’, and specifically described as the sense of failure ‘to make it’ at what is seen as a European (colonial, imperialist) university. But what is not clear is what the transformed university would actually look like. The Rhodes-Must Fall campaigners have festooned the university’s notice boards with posters happily proclaiming, “Transformation has taken a leap forward”, while its companion poster shows a jumble of words that convey no specific meaning…, reminding one of the central problem with China’s Great Leap Forward; it destroyed but put nothing in its place. As agitating students, staff and supporting newspaper reporters resort to defacing symbols, demanding changes (inter alia for easier curricula and academic race quotas), occupying administrative offices, and mindlessly repeating slogans, one wonders if this is what they believe the ethos of an African university should be. In the Monday Monthly Special of April 2015 we are shown a picture of a demanding student proudly posing in front of an occupied building with a slogan and a clenched fist, but he has placed duct tape across his mouth… one wonders if he has any notion of the deep contradiction this image presents at a university, whether an African university or any other sort of university. Unlike some of my friends who have taken the view that the Rhodes-Must-Fall program will energise a wholesale change in the institutional culture of UCT, I expect that there will be some shifts to becoming a bit more African (however that may be manifest), but the university will nevertheless remain much on the same course as it is now. The reason for this is because UCT has a significant international exposure and connectedness which steers it away from the parochial. One is reminded of how, as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the 1960s, Albert Hertzog tried in vain to prevent television from being introduced to South Africa. Hertzog’s self-serving motivation was to preserve his specific brand of culture but ultimately the internal and international pressure prevailed and all his efforts were swept aside. So I expect it to be as with email, twitter, pop music, sneakers and tee-shirt slogans. I expect that despite the present cultural dissonance experienced by a section of the black student population, the youth at the university will adapt to the ethos of a pervasive International institutional culture…, I believe that UCT will remain a university for the foreseeable future, with some African flavour. I guess only those who will be around in 2030 will find out for sure. Regards Jeff
(Written March 2014)
It has been suggested that systematic corruption thrives on organisational weaknesses in which the perpetrators can exploit conflicting incentives; discretionary and monopolistic powers; and a culture of impunity. And it can be seen that in some societies systematic corruption has become the norm; while in others, when (for personal gain), the political leaders of that society are prepared to take the government down that slippery slope, the general population has been able to reject this influence and opt for ‘clean administration’.
It is not clear to me what it takes for a population to rid itself of systematic corruption when it is at such a watershed…, just as it is not clear to me whether or not a sufficient number of honest members can presently be found in the ANC to counter the systematic corruption that has been encouraged by the Zuma administration.
It was while reading extracts of the Public Protector’s report on how the South African president had managed to spend over R200 million from the public purse on his private home at Nkandla that I was reminded of another leader who, also through an insidious system of patronage, had rebuilt his family home with “his accumulations in office”. The thing that reminded me of Sir Robert Walpole (1676 – 1745), the ‘First Minister’ of Great Britain, was paragraph 6.35.1 of the Nkandla Report; a section detailing minutes of meetings to show how Zuma had lied about his not knowing how any of it came about. And the minutes that caught my eye were those in which the president’s personal architect, Minenhle Makhanya, “indicated that he was advised by the President that the households to be relocated (to make way for the expanded Zuma homestead) ‘is waiting for a family member to arrive before relocation can take place’”, and later, that “(Zuma) had requested to be informed about the delay in their relocation from the site”. These minutes were noted not because they provide yet further evidence that the South African president was lying, but that this was not the first time the little guys had been moved away because they spoiled the view from a grand house.
In 1722, then at the height of his powers, Robert Walpole had the original Village of Houghton demolished…, to make way for the lawns that were to surround his lavishly rebuilt home, Houghton Hall. In the BBC series, A History of Britain, Simon Schama can be seen next to the stone marker that shows where the original village had been located, certainly since 1086. And what links these two events in my mind is that in both cases they reflect an astonishing arrogance on the part of the owner of the mansion. Was it not enough that these men had helped themselves to obscene amounts of public money to serve their self-interest, to live in excessive luxury, and to make a grand show of their personal power? Did they really have to rub it in by getting rid of the little guys? See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JidE-4k3Io
Of course, Walpole’s political power did come to a sad and lonely end when, in 1742, he was pushed out of office. The sycophantic network he had created vanished into thin air but by then he had made a significant contribution to his country. He had stabilized a nation exhausted by war and the travails of royal succession. He really did lead and allowed for the development of the first modern parliament. Under his watch, Britain prospered as never before and the words “Rule Britannia” took on a meaning that spawned pride, nationhood, and prosperity. Zuma, on the other hand, has presided over a shrinking economy in which the personality of the country’s president is a very bad joke. The dancing, smiling, beguiling president of South Africa offers no leadership, nor does he instil confidence in the people who are at a political crossroad. Worse, there is a very real danger that the Zuma legacy may well be that of systematic government corruption in which the ANC’s Protection of State Information Act will play a pivotal role in keeping future presidents out of jail… unless there are sufficient numbers of good people in the ANC to put an end to this abuse of power.
The critical question at this time in South Africa, is whether the membership of the ANC has what it takes to return to its ideals and to elect a President who does not need to spend millions on lawyers to keep him/her out of jail? Does the membership of the ANC have what it takes to elect a President who does not give his/her friends special privileges to land their private aeroplanes at the country’s military airbases, and a President who does not have the arrogance to push the little people off the land…, as an expression of personal power?
(Written 15 December 2013)
With the demise of Nelson Mandela still dominating everything in the news this week, including the advertising, South Africans return again and again to the question, “How did it all go so wrong in the new South Africa? How did it happen that we started heroically with the ANC of Mandela, and a brief decade and a half later, we are saddled with the corrupt and incompetent ANC of Jacob Zuma! At the same we ask rather dolefully, “What can be done to right the ship?”
In thinking of this, the ballad of Sir Patrick Spens came to mind. I first heard this poem recited in 1971 by my good friend Giles Tayelor. We were steaming across the Indian Ocean at the time and I remember the dramatic moment vividly. The two of us were engineer cadets on the SA Vergelegen and he, being a SACS boy and all, had been taught poetry at school. (I had had no such luck having been sent to a technical school.) On that afternoon the blue-black sea was quite rough with storm clouds overhead and we were looking out over the aft deck at the wake of the ship when he told how, in the poem, “the lift grew dark, and the wind blew loud, and gurley grew the sea. The ankers brak, and the topmast lap, It was sic a deadly storm”. He recited how the sailors tried valiantly to keep the ship afloat until (depending on the version you read) “a bolt flew from our gude ship’s side, and the salt sea it came in…” And as every well-educated schoolboy knows, Sir Patrick and the good ship did not survive, the poem ending poignantly, “Half-owre, half-owre to Aberdour, ‘Tis fifty fathoms deep; And there lies Sir Patrick Spens, Wi’ the Scots lords at his feet!” http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch058.htm
Of course, what makes the story so heroic is that it all started out with hope. Hope that the treacherous journey to bring the king’s daughter back from Norway could be achieved, the poem beginning: “The king sites in Dumferline town Drinking the blude-red wine; “O whare will I get a skeely* skipper To sail this ship of mine?” O up and spak an eldern knight, Sat at the king’s right knee; “Sir Patrick Spens is the best sailor That ever Sail’d the sea.” ” *skilful
In 1994 we started out with hope, but when we look at the storms gathering in all quarters of South Africa today we see that the “lift is growing dark and the wind is beginning to howl”; and to illustrate the warning signs I draw your attention to the rather strange case of Thamsanqa Jantjie who was appointed by unknown to sign, for the deaf, the speeches at Mandela’s memorial service on 10 December 2013. It is a case that epitomizes the strange world of Jacob Zuma; something captured perfectly by Zapiro.
Now, before you say the president cannot be responsible for everything, may I say that I know that Jacob did not appoint the interpreter personally, I know that mistakes happen, and I know that in the bigger scheme of things, Thamsanqa Jantjie’s blatant lies about his being a qualified interpreter for the deaf is a relatively small thing, albeit a sad one. I know that there are fraudsters and shysters all over the world, but consider the circumstances of his appointment.
The Sunday Times of South Africa, dated 15 December 2013 (p. 3) informs us that the head of the ANC’s religious and traditional affairs desk, Bantubahle Xozwa, happens to own South African Interpreters, the company that employed Jantjies. For these ‘services’, South African Interpreters included in their bill an invoice from another company, Asange Image Studio. The reason being that images are required “for all appearances” of SA Interpreter’s workers. You may well ask why another company is required to provide something that could so easily be acquired in-house until you find out that Asange Image Studio is owned by Cikizwa Xozwa, Bantubahle’s wife. Cikizwa also happens to be the office manager for Jackson Mthembu, the ANC spokesman; small world this. It seems that SA Translators and Asange have done quite a lot of business with the ANC and here is the cherry on top, their “invoices to the ANC all have the same false address and registration number”.
If all of this sounds a bit like everything else that surrounds Jacob Zuma, but you are not convinced, here is the clincher. When it was asked who Jantjies was, remember, this is a man who had been given top security clearance to be in the inner circle with people like the President of the United States, and it was asked how he came to be appointed…, nobody knows! The ANC’s Jackson Mthembu tells us Jantjies’ “services were secured by the government”, but conceded that the ANC has “utilized his services over the years”. Henrietta Bogopane-Zulu, the government’s deputy minister of women, children and the disabled (by every account a totally dysfunctional department) is quoted as saying that her department did not hire Jantjies. Furthermore, she “did not know who had”; adding that “somebody, somewhere, is lying”. Err, yes, that is one of the few things we worked out pretty quickly.
As noted, this little episode epitomizes Jacob’s administration; everything about it is “so totally Zuma”. In the Zuma world it is OK to provide a mediocre service and defraud the public. We have ample evidence of how those in the inner circle of ‘number 1’ have license to feed from end-to-end through the country as though it were a trough. In the Zuma world it is OK for cabinet ministers to cheat on travel expenses and to botch substantial tenders (Joemat-Peterson), no matter what the cost to the country’s natural resources. And if you get found out, well, just hang in there, the Secrecy Bill is just around the corner to protect the government’s flops. In the Zuma world it is OK to spend an unauthorized MR200 (US$20,000,000) on yourself while pretending it is for your security because if you are the president surrounded by a sycophantic coterie of security ministers, you can have your private home in the rural midlands at Nkandla declared a national key point; while at the same time your friends can land their private airliners at the Waterkloof Airforce Base, a real military installation in a built-up area, because that can be declared… “not be a national key point”. And all the while those actually responsible will know nothing! It is pure Zuma.
So we ask ourselves again, how can the hope we had be saved? Where will we find a skilful skipper to sail this ship of State for we have seen ‘the new moon with the old moon in her arm’, and we know that if we are to continue this way ‘we’ll surely come to harm’. Who can sail South Africa away from the storm that is the accumulation of the corruption, lies, mediocrity and feigned ignorance that characterizes the administration of Jacob Zuma; an administration spectacularly symbolized by the mumbo-jumbo of the delusional Thamsanqa Jantjies?
(Written 4 Nov 2012)
A recent discussion about Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd (1901 – 1966) having been at Wynberg Boys High School for one year (http://www.wbhs.org.za/ Headmaster’s Blog) had me reaching for my copy of what must be the finest book published on Afrikaaner Nationalism, W A de Klerk’s The Puritans in Africa: A story of Afrikaanerdom, (Pelican, 1976). The thought on my mind being to what extent his schooling may have influenced the world-view of a person many would consider to have been the devil incarnate.
It is well recorded that Verwoerd was an extremely intelligent man (although I have learnt that he only came second in his Wynberg class, 1913) but what was of greater interest to me is the way in which his early life may have made it possible for him to rationalise his role in the obvious destruction, pain and distress caused by the implementation of National Party policies in South Africa during the 50s and 60s. Especially since his father seems to have had great sympathy for the Boers in their struggle against the English and so the family’s sense of the pain of social injustice must have been acute. It is my guess that his deeply religious father played a key role in his thinking and perhaps his schoolboy experiences had a part in it. No doubt his immersion in the Social Pathologies and problems of white Afrikaaner poverty during the depression years in particular could have prompted a self-image of a saviour of his people. Whatever it was, his destruction of the lives of many people came with a peculiar sense of righteousness that is well described in Chapter 10, titled The Promethean Afrikaaner, a chapter in which de Klerk writes about the way in which the policy of apartheid ‘unfolded’ (p. 241):
Never in history have so few legislated so programmatically, thoroughly and religiously, in such a short time, for so many divergent groups, cultures and traditions, than the nationalist Afrikaaners of the second half of the twentieth century. Never had such a small minority of all those affected done so much with such a high sense of purpose, vocation and idealism. Never have so few drawn such sharply critical attention from a wondering world. Never has such a volume of criticism been so wide of the mark.
The world’s criticism was ineffective because “(they) did not understand that the harshness, the patent injustices, were all oblique but necessary results of a most rational, most passionate, most radical will to restructure the world according to a vision of justice; all with a view to lasting peace, progress and prosperity. As such it was true to the peculiar life-style of the Western Puritan man.
This Puritanical view of righteousness was captured in two dicta regularly preached by Verwoerd, the first being that “The policy (of separate development) is designed for happiness, security and stability…,” and secondly, in the nature of a slogan, “Skep self u eie toekoms!” In a sentence, “Create your own future by a design for the happiness of all.”
These dicta, in some modern context, may find a place in the hearts and minds of the Men of Wynberg in 2012, but I am sure we will never be able to calculate the damage, suffering and loss brought about by the Puritanical implementation and rationalisation of this ultimately misguided work by the disciples of Malan; N. J. van der Merwe, T. E. Dönges, Eric Louw, C. R. Swart, J. G. Strydom and H. F. Verwoerd. All of whom, except Verwoerd, as de Klerk points out, “… were urbanised Afrikaaners, but a generation removed from their own platteland nurseries (p.114).” Verwoerd was born in Holland.
So in answer to the question as to how it was possible for Verwoerd to rationalise the destruction of apartheid, I am afraid I really am non-the-wiser. Who knows what goes on in the mind of an extremely intelligent bigot ?
(Written on 13 October 2012)
Once upon a time there was a president of a struggling country. The suffering people of the land had been exploited by their political masters over many years and as their lives became more and more miserable the desperate citizens turned to their smiling, dancing president for the requisite leadership that had hitherto been absent. The people looked to their president for words that they could understand, for words that would inspire them, for words that would make it possible for them to see their way forward. As it happened, at that time, an election was looming and there was a small possibility that the president may lose his #1 position of privilege at the State’s feeding trough – a position he was very keen to retain because he was misappropriating a great deal of the peoples’ money to build a giant castle for himself at Inkandla – and so he went to speak to his old friends, the ANC’s Umkonto we Sizwe Military Veterans’ Association.
But instead of saying things that could be plainly understood by the ex-soldiers and the nation, the president spoke in metaphor. He told them that a previous President of the ANC had warned them to “beware of the enemy within”. He told them not to get into busses if they did not know where the bus-driver was going. He gave them the surprising news that fraudulent and corrupt leaders were alien to the ANC. Without being specific, he told the veterans to “remain vigilant” in guarding against those who lobby for positions.
In listening to the president’s metaphoric messages I was reminded of the Macbeth skit from the BBC 60s & 70s radio show, I’m Sorry I’ll Read That Again, a show featuring John Cleese, Graeme Garden, Jo Kendall, David Hatch, Tim Brooke Taylor and Bill Oddie. In the following piece, Macbeth is giving instructions to the murderers:
(Read the whole wonderful script at http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=83483 or listen to it starting at 16:45 at http://www.myoldradio.com/old-radio-episodes/i-m-sorry-ill-read-that-again-macbeth/3)
Lady Macbeth: Macbeth, we must put an end to Banquo and his son Fleance, I have hired two murderers.
Lady Macbeth: That’ll be them.
(enter two murderers)
Macbeth: Ah, you must be the…
Macbeth: As you may know, I have a little…
Macbeth: Exactly, I was hoping that it could meet with a little…
Murderers: shall we say… accident
Macbeth: My very words.
Murderers: there is of course the question of…
Macbeth: Say no more.
Macbeth: So you will…
Macbeth: And it will be…
Macbeth: Then I think we…
Murderers: Understand each other? Good.
Murderer 1: What have we got to do?
Murdered 2: I’ve absolutely no idea.
Announcer: The next day, Banquo was murdered, but his son Fleance escaped. When Macbeth heard this, he tore his hair and stamped on his rabbit.
The problem with the metaphorically speaking president’s exhorting of ex-soldiers to do something about an ill-defined enemy is that it is not clear who the corrupt, misdirected bus-driver may be. Who is the enemy lobbying for a top position by the bulk-buying of members (in ZwaZulu-Natal)? Surely the president wasn’t referring to himself… or is there someone else in the ANC guilty of these alien tendencies?
Sadly, this fairy tale does not appear to end happily ever after.
(Written 2 October 2012)
With the ANC’s 2012 leadership race in full swing we expect our newspapers to be crammed with the vicissitudes of political intrigue over the next three months, the big question being, will the rapacious Jacob Zuma be returned to office? Somehow one gets the feeling that the accredited souls of the ANC will not have what it takes to make the desperately needed change… which leads to the next question, why not? Why would the rank and file of that organisation return this man to office when it is as plain as a pikestaff that he is a failed president.
On Zuma’s watch all of South Africa’s key social indicators have turned to alarms. He has, on occasion, pronounced on action to be taken to arrest the scourge that is corruption and yet, at absolutely every level of government, corruption has boomed. Some years ago Zuma declared his government ready to get teachers to spend time-on-task, but for the majority of learners education has ‘tanked’. Instead of the promised “better life for all”, we have a disintegrating public health service, labour relations at a dangerous low, abysmal municipal service delivery that exacerbates the daily struggle and we have a level of social protest and violence reminiscent of the bad old days of Apartheid, all coupled with inept, gung-ho policing
The Constitution is under threat and the National Prosecuting Authority is moribund while the ANC’s parliamentary priority appears to be its bid to hide that party’s corruption behind a Protection of Information Act. The hugely important problems of land restitution and nationalisation are left unattended expect for the occasionally mumbled question in speeches, “How do we fix these things?”… this open question being Zuma’s stock reply to every complex problem.
Astonishing amounts of taxpayer’s money have been squandered on junkets for government officials while the dysfunctional Public Works Department is being plundered for personal gain by anyone with political clout, mainly by the president himself. The list goes on and in this litany of travesties we look to the president’s example – which embodies a great deal of what has gone wrong in the country – and we recognise that in every crisis the country has had to face of late, the president has failed to inspire the struggling nation.
And despite the obvious erosion of this country’s social fabric the smiling, dancing, wooing president has convinced himself that he has not failed because, “the ANC does not have a single person as its leader, the ANC has collective leadership”. Zuma is able to reconcile his dismal performance by holding out that in the ANC the buck does not stop anywhere. For ANC members there is privilege and reward, never individual accountability.
But is there such a thing as ‘collective leadership’?
Over the last 30 or so years a great deal has been published in business and organisational literature about management vs. leadership. Researchers have considered whether these are just two sides of the same organisational coin, they have tried to distinguish the actions of management from the actions of leadership. They have even wondered whether managers are a different breed from leaders. My experience is that these two aspects of organisation are closely linked but are quite different in one key respect; management is impersonal while leadership is intensely personal. Management is structured, mechanistic, and to a large extent, faceless. The responsibilities of management can certainly be shared and so the idea of an amorphous “collective management” does have validity. But leadership has a character and a style; it is idiosyncratic. The character of an organisation is the character of its leader and so the idea of ‘collective leadership’ is simply nonsense.
The strength of management in an organisation is vested in its infrastructure, it is a long-term asset, while its leadership is vested in the individual at the head, a short-term thing. That is why it is possible for once well-led and well-managed organisations to continue operations for limited periods with poor leadership. Which is also why, when leadership change takes place, good organisations can make their way safely through periods of transition, but no organisation can accommodate for a sustained period, a lack of leadership, or the burden of poor leadership.
As an aside, it is worth noting that successful organisations have at their head an individual who is able to play the roles of both a manager and a leader as appropriate. Such individuals will show an inclination to be one rather than the other, but those heads that bring about prosperity always have a clear sense of when they are managing and when they need to be leading.
Which brings us back to the blight that has struck the ANC in 2012: In its 100th year it finds itself with neither leadership nor management; and no apparent way to correct itself. The ANC’s loss of direction has its roots in the mid-1990s when the leadership of Mandela was replaced by the bureaucracy of Mbeki. And this downhill slide was underscored when the bureaucratic style was replaced with the self-serving but otherwise vacuous leadership of Jacob Zuma.
It is a sorry state of affairs for an organisation that could boast a wealth of management and leadership a mere 20 years ago, but which is now mostly gone. Sadly, for the Beloved Country and for the ANC, Jacob Zuma appears to be as good as it gets. Eish!
(Written 26 June 2012)
In a previous blog I wrote about lessons South Africans could learn from Singaporeans in regard to dealing with corrupt officials and I came in for a bit of stick about holding Singapore up as a paragon of political virtue (something I did not actually intend to do). So in opening, may I say that I recognise the fact that the political playing field in Singapore is not level and that the general tone of the blogs that I am predisposed to write may well get me into trouble if I were writing about the Singapore government rather than the South African one. Further, I believe that South Africa has a political system that may well be the envy of opposition politicians in Singapore, but that is not what I am concerned about here. I am concerned about the rapacious behaviour of public officials and politicians in South Africa and the fact that they are allowed to get away with it.
To illustrate the point I shall use a topic close to my heart; education, specifically the administration of education. And of the many, many possible examples I shall pick on the Eastern Cape School Feeding Scheme, the Books to Limpopo saga, and the question of SADTU paralysing any effort to correct unethical behaviour by teachers in the educational system.
The provision of primary and tertiary schooling in the Eastern Cape has long been a problem with multiple complexities and the following report on the topic is well worth reading. http://eprints.ru.ac.za/1399/1/Hendricks_school_book_article.pdf I would like to draw attention to the sentence on page 3 of the above, “The school feeding scheme debacle is just the most recent manifestation of an on-going malaise of inefficiency and corruption”. Now, the feeding scheme was launched in 1994 as a Presidential Lead Project and this report is one of many articles on the failure of this scheme. Just as widely reported is the fact that the Auditor-General has found that R100s of millions have been misappropriated over the years by the administrators of this scheme. In short, the officials in charge of this now collapsed feeding scheme have been complicit in the theft of significant amounts of money that was designated to buy food for undernourished children… and no-one has, or ever will be, called to account!
Presently in the South African news is the schoolbook debacle in which the Limpopo Province’s Department of Education has failed to supply the requisite school texts 6 months after the start of the academic year. If you read the Internet blurb on the company at the centre of the trouble, EduSolutions and its holding company African Access, you would think the task of providing the tools of education could not be in better hands, but even after a court order in May to make good on the delivery, part of a R320 million contract, the books were still not delivered. http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/firing-motshekga-not-the-answer-zille-1.1326803 What we can expect to come out of this over the next few weeks and months is that a bit of dust will be kicked up here and there and details of some corruption will make its way into the public domain, but we cannot expect that anyone is ever going to be prosecuted. In short, the officials in the Limpopo Department of Education have been complicit in the maladministration of, and possibly even the theft of, significant amounts of money designated to buy educational material for children… and no-one has been, or ever will be, called to account!
A report has recently found its way into the media about the role that the South African Council for Educators (SACE) has played, or not played, in the improvement of the clearly failing educational system in South Africa. http://inside-politics.org/2012/06/25/how-sadtu-and-the-sace-have-damaged-accountability-in-sa-education/ A key mandate of the SACE is to “uphold ethical practice by educators” and it has emerged that of some 350,000 active teachers in the educational system, only 97 have been fired in 12 years. This sounds like a pretty good statistic until you stop for a moment and ask yourself what happened to all those many cases of physical abuse of pupils (some even videotaped), cases of getting pupils pregnant, of the rape of pupils, of misappropriation of school funds, of teacher absenteeism and of teacher drunkenness that have been published in the papers over the last 12 years? Certainly there have been way, way more than 100 reported cases of very serious misdemeanours… Is it really possible that all these people are still on the Department’s payroll? Sadly yes. And as a reward for a job well done, the CEO of the SACE, Rej Brijraj – who has the responsibility to the children to ensure ethical standards in the teaching profession – was paid bonuses totaling almost R1 million to add to his already handsome salary over the last seven years. In short, the officials of the SACE have been complicit in the SADTU-backed conspiracy of silence that has protected those guilty of unethical teaching practices, once again leaving the children as the losers… and no-one has, or ever will be, called to account!
I return to the question posed at the start of this blog. Would the teachers and administrators of the educational system in Singapore be able to get away with behaviour like this? I think not.
(Written 22 June 2012)
As one would expect, Singapore is quite different from South Africa in many respects. Certainly the remains of British colonialism gives the two environments a similar look, but it does not take long to work out that the underlying cultures have resulted in very different views of the world.
Consider for example the difference in the everyday sense that corruption is simply unacceptable in Singapore; while… well, despite what the ANC politicians say, sort of, it is ok in South Africa. This contrast is well illustrated by a comparison of an article on the front page of Singapore’s The Straits Times (22 June 2012) and an online report on South Africa’s Times Live of the same date. In the Singapore paper the article is headed ‘Senior MFA official under probe over expense claims’, while in the South African article it is “Judgements reserved in Mdluli case”.
It turns out that Mr Lim, who has been head of protocol at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 10 years has been accused of making improper expense clams in regard to trips abroad. Mr Lim is described in the article as a “go to guy” who has served the ministry “very well” for 38 years and is highly respected. In 2009 he was awarded Singapore’s silver medal for Public Administration. An ambassador is quoted as saying that “This is very surprising, he is a good guy, very straight”, a view underscored by the fact that the position of head of protocol is given only to those “trusted by the top echelons of government”. Investigations have only begun and no-one knows if Mr Lim is guilty or not, but he has been suspended from his position and his pay has been docked anyway. As far as could be established, Mr Lim has not been arrested.
Richard Mdluli on the other hand stands accused inter alia of murder, misappropriation of secret police funds and nepotism. He also stands accused of being responsible for the leaking of sensitive tapes and emails that have proved to be greatly advantageous to Jacob Zuma. See http://thepatterns.info/crime-intelligence-head-saga-reveals-a-growing-threat-to-the-rule-of-law-in-south-africa/ Incidentally, I note that Mdluli is using the old Shabier Shaik hypertension ploy (perhaps preparing a get-out-of-jail card) to muddy the waters while legally contesting, not whether he is innocent or guilty, but whether some detail of the delivery of his suspension notice was correct or not… and for this judgement has to be reserved. In the meantime Richard Mdluli is on full pay and wandering about as free as a bird.
Singapore is a huge success story in the improvement of people’s lives while South Africa’s public administration is a dysfunctional quagmire in which, for the last 20 years, the quality of life of ordinary people has remained the same at best. And sadly, the prospects of any improvement in the near to medium future are dismal. And all the while there are ANC members in Parliament who have actually been found guilty of what Mr Lim is only accused of doing – cheating on expense accounts – with the difference that the guilty ANC members in South Africa are still sitting in parliament, still making laws, and still supposedly providing fiduciary oversight on behalf of the people! Astonishingly, the Northern Cape ANC recently re-elected John Block as their chairman despite his facing a comprehensive set of charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering! What the hell is that electorate thinking? http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2012/06/08/john-block-re-elected-as-anc-northern-cape-chair And the poor people in South Africa cheer Julius Malema when he tells them how he feels their pain because others have stolen their wealth; but then he drives away in a fleet of BMWs, wearing expensive suits and a breitling watch, to recently acquired properties worth millions, for which there is no accounting other than to point solidly to corrupt tenderpreneuring. Still the people see no irony ! The list of ANC officials still in office who have been caught with their fingers in the cookie jar goes on and on, but for me the most inexplicable is that the ANC elected a president who was known to have received money under very dubious circumstances from a convicted fraudster, but no matter, they put him in the highest office anyway!
So ask yourself this question, is there a link between the electorate’s tolerance for corruption and the State’s failure to provide basic services to the people? I certainly think so. And then wonder why it is that the supporters of the ANC allow themselves and the country to be abused in this way? That is the part that has me flummoxed. Perhaps more of the South African electorate should visit Singapore; none of that ANC ambiguity about graft and corruption here, that’s for sure.
(Written 18 June 2012)
If it is true that the ANC wants to find ways to solve the problems facing the country in 2012, why do they not simply start with the work done by the State’s National Planning Commission? After all, that Commission was established in 2010 to investigate exactly those issues that plague South Africa and their first (perhaps only?) report was published in November 2011. As I understood it, the findings of the NPC were meant to inform the policy deliberations at the ANC’s policy conference at the end of June this year, so what is the role of Jacob Zuma’s ‘second transition’ document?
I have written, on 19 March 2010, about the ‘zuma manuva’, a phrase that describes a political manoeuvre in which the leader presents to the followers ideas or promises in such a way that every individual can interpret what he or she heard as if what they wanted was being offered to them, but in truth nothing is being offered to anyone. Jacob Zuma, after whom the strategy has been named, is the arch-practitioner of the zuma manuva and so it comes as no surprise to me that there should have been leaked to the press a set of discussion documents that the ANC has dubbed the “second transition”. (Drawn up incidentally, also, to protect the ANC from those who want to steal it from the masses. A story well know to students of the history of Liberation.)
Indeed, the president and various ministers and officials have alluded to the importance of the second transition in recent speeches but from the pieces on the topic published so far, it is not possible for the public, nor the Deputy-President it seems, to work out from what and to what the second transition may be. Come to think of it, I don’t recall a first transition in the ANC, but that is of no consequence because the only important thing about this document is that it lacks specifics; you see, obfuscation is the hallmark of a zuma manuva.
The ultimate purpose of the second transition document is to prepare for the ANC’s Mangaung presidential election at the end of 2012 and so the timing of the leaking of the second transition documents – before the ANC’s June policy conference, but not too long before in case it is recognised as a nonsense – is a key part of the strategy. Unlike the work of the National Planning Commission which has a brief to point in some particular way to a better future, the purpose of the second transition document is to point in every possible different way at once… that is the essence of the zuma manuva. And by the time Mangaung arrives, the Zuma camp will make the claim that their second transitional plan was ratified by the ANC’s June policy conference.
For those who wish to read that land will be given to all and that the right of ownership of property will be protected; that the broken education system will be repaired and that teachers’ unions will not be challenged; that the moribund economy will be invigorated and that all workers will be given decent work without their having to work very much; that a free press in South Africa is sacrosanct and that the state’s ‘secrets’ will be protected; that nationalisation of mines and banks is being discussed and that foreign fixed investment is safe; that corruption will be rooted out and that government officials who inadvertantly had their fingers in the till will be given a second chance… just look for it in the second transition. The picture from the Mail & Guardian of 20 March 2012 is an example of what I mean. Green? Of course, everything is green in the second transition. What colour would you like it to be? (This already government policy after all, so no problems there.)
In summary, the purpose of the second transition is to play the role of a promised “Great leap forward”. So, for some real insight into the goings-on inside the ANC over the next few months, don’t look for what is or is not written in the second transition document, look for the way in which the political ambiguities are incorporated.
(Written 9 June 2012)
There has been much discussion in the South African media about the destruction of interpersonal relations and the problems that arise from some considering themselves inferior or superior to others; what we would readily recognise as the old problem of racism. The reaction by a portion of South African society to the Brett Murray painting The Spear is a case in point, to which I should like add the comment that it takes two to make racism ‘work’, there has to be a victim and a victor.
In 2008 I took a job as a science teacher at a school that was specifically focussed on working with children from disadvantaged black communities. Having spent most of the previous 35-odd years of my working life in some or other engineering capacity, this was a significant change in my life, one that presented unexpected challenges. I had expected that my offering and expertise from the world of science and technology would be welcomed – and indeed they were warmly welcomed by the children – but you can imagine my surprise when, as a person, I was rejected by the inner management of the school. Rejection of this sort had never happened to me before and it took a while to figure out why an industrious, well-meaning, committed and friendly person would be ostracised by the adults at an institution like that? The reason was that my behaviour was seen as that of a “dominating white male”.
The question of racism on such a personal level is generally not confronted in the engineering world and so I had never before been accused of real, or imagined, interpersonal racism. I have always taken the view that racism is a bad thing but I had had no real, personal understanding of the destructive nature of racism in its many guises. In any event, at the time I was struggling to find my feet in the classroom and given that I had been told by an otherwise knowledgeable friend that, “Honkies cannot teach in the Townships” (Whites cannot teach black children), I was very focussed on trying to find out how to relate to children in a learning environment, especially children who’s experiences and cultural background was quite different from mine. So being accused of racism at a time like that was a bewildering problem.
A useful way in which to understand human interaction of the sort outlined above is based on Patsy Rodenburg’s book, Presence: How to Use Positive Energy for Success in Every Situation (Michael Joseph, 2007). Rodenberg develops the model by which three modes of human interaction are described and she refers to these modes as “circles of energy”. An excellent description of these concepts is given at http://sciencestage.com/v/5454/patsy-rodenburg-the-second-circle. Here is my summary of the circle model:
1st circle of energy: Where interaction is characterised by introversion, withdrawal, subservience and “being the victim”.
2nd circle of energy: Where interaction is characterised by balance, give-and-take, intimacy and “being an equal”.
3rd circle of energy: Where interaction is characterised by extraversion, imposition, control, domination and “being the boss”.
As noted, for a number of years I had been an engineering manager and although I was conscious of being a newcomer in teaching, I suppose I unwittingly took on the look of a ‘boss’, although I am not sure of this. Certainly I had a lot of skills to offer but that, paradoxically, also seemed to be a failing. Apparently my colleagues didn’t need a capable person to lay a golden egg every other day, they wanted people around them who would let them feel as equals; something they apparently could not do with me because I was perceived as a dominating white guy. All their lives they had been threatened and demeaned by dominating white guys and they resented it deeply. Using the Rodenberg model, my behaviour was seen as being of the 3rd circle, imposing and controlling, which automatically drove them into 1st circle. When I found I was inexplicably being frozen out of the team by the management of the school it was my turn to exhibit 1st circle behaviour… and because I did not know why all of this was happening, I remained in the 1st circle until I left the school.
In the tradition of Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) – who invariably used himself as an example – I can see evidence in my own life of not being properly schooled in the art of living in the 2nd circle. Like so many people in our society, somewhere early on the knowledge of how to live effectively in the 2nd circle appears to have been knocked out of me to some extent. Was it that boarding school? Perhaps it followed from the rigid instruction always to “stand on your own two feet”. I do not know how or why it came about, but I have since become convinced that the best way to get through the world is to learn the skill of graciously receiving and giving, as equals, for as Rodenberg puts it, “we need to be in 2nd circle in order to survive.”
Accusations of racism such as those experienced at the school automatically result in 3rd and 1st circle behaviour, which in turn allows for the justification of the disengagement on both sides. In a perverted way, racism offers an illusion of ‘safety’ in the interaction in that it defines where each stands in relation to the other. But sustained 3rd and 1st circle behaviour is insidiously dangerous in that it wilts the human spirit and destroys what could have been. A country in which its citizens lock themselves in such a paradigm is doomed to fail.
And what of the cure for racism? Well, that may not be so easy for it requires both parties to want to interact in the 2nd circle, an engagement that requires a degree of personal courage and understanding from both sides. It requires that both parties want to give and take. And it requires that neither party identifies victims and victors, but that each learns to see themselves and the others as equals. Far sooner said than done… a task that requires great leadership.
PS: In considering all of this I went back to my notes on Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of Freedom, writing that makes a lot more sense to me now, and I have made it a personal goal to try and lecture in the 2nd circle. Although I still have a great deal to learn about the subtleties and nuances of speaking, listening, feeling and thinking in each of the “circles of energy”, there is something of which I am already quite certain, “We need to be in 2nd circle in order to survive.”
PPS: Thanks to Vicki Bawcombe, who, by way of helping me develop some teaching skills, suggested I read Patsy Rodenburg’s work.