Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

The two ends of the SA statue debate: The ‘cleaning’ of painful reminders of past atrocities vs the juxtaposition model

03 July 2020 | Story Prof Francis Petersen and Motsaathebe Serekoane

Steyn Read More — Motsaathebe Serekoane,left, and Prof Francis Petersen.

The South African statue debate is back in the spotlight again, as statues deemed controversial or offensive are coming down in America and Europe during demonstrations against racism and police violence that have renewed attention on the legacy of injustices. This follows the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for more than eight minutes.

The world has witnessed the toppling of Confederate statues in San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Raleigh, North Carolina in the US, as well as a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol and the statue of slave holder Robert Milligan, which was removed from outside the Museum of London Docklands in the UK. The statue of Paul Kruger on Church Square in Pretoria was again vandalised with red paint during a #BlackLivesMatter protest, as was the statues of Voltaire, a leading thinker and writer in France, and Hubert Lyautey, a French general and colonial administrator.

The attacks/hostilities against statues started in 2015 when the statue of Cecil John Rhodes at the University of Cape Town was torn down by students during the height of the #RhodesMustFall protest, which subsequently led to the #FeesMustFall protest that saw the statue of CR Swart at the University of the Free State being toppled a year later.

The challenge in the South African context

The traditional definition and meaning of spaces inhabited by people (including temporarily) still renders some of the public spaces unwelcoming and excluding by virtue of their names, presence of symbols, and inscriptions. These spatial markers have a historical significance link with certain social identities or representation, and there is an increasing call for the reconfiguration of public spaces. It is argued that the symbolic landscape also requires change if a city/metro is to incorporate all its citizens and their histories into the fabric of an ‘imagined’ inclusive and just city.

The politics of symbolic representation has been at the heart of decolonisation and post-apartheid transformation. At stake in South Africa – with the historical legacy of segregation policies – is the competing and often conflicting notion of space, and the ideological notion of commemoration or memorialisation, coupled with the lack of shared collective memory and meaning of public representation.

This calls for a pro-active approach towards the preservation and conservation of heritage resources material. In line with the National Developmental Plan 2030 (NDP 2030) – as a transforming country (with the baggage of both colonial and apartheid legacies) – the state is striving to cultivate an environment that is inclusive and socially just. The transformation of spatial milieu presupposes collective ownership and management of space, founded on the permanent and temporary participation of the 'interested and affected parties' with their multiple, varied, and even contradictory political interests. In the review of the current symbolic landscape for inclusion, it is suggested that spatial identity transformation be negotiated; the process must develop from a nexus that understands the interrelationship between space and spatial inscription through the form of street names, symbols, public art, and other forms of spatial markers.

Important to note is that symbolic power is inherent in these processes of change and includes, among other things, erasure and recognition and competing notions of spatial inscription or re-inscription. Notwithstanding the progress made to date, the following remains a challenge: reflecting on the definition and meaning of spaces that have become public; critical reflection on the role of memorabilia in the post-embedded-conflict society; the notion of preservation and conservation in the post-embedded-conflict society; reflecting on the role of memorabilia for documentation and educational ends; and finally, broadening the heritage landscape.

The politics of recognition

Five years since the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements, different forms of memorabilia still remain at the centre of discontent. The observation is that contemplative conversations on these diverse commemorative markers, sites, and symbols established during the colonial, apartheid, and democracy eras are becoming a threat to the country’s NDP 2030, and in particular the social cohesion project. South Africa and the rest of the world continue to struggle to situate/re-appropriate historical text in the contemporary politics of recognition. The demand for recognition in the post-conflict society is given urgency/traction by the hypothetical links between recognition, identity, and public representation. Recent literature postulates that non-recognition or misrecognition in the metros or city spatial landscape can inflict harm, be a form of oppression, or imprison someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being and belonging. Despite the Ministry of Arts and Culture’s investment in transforming the heritage landscape across South Africa – from the level of policy and legislation, the establishment of new commemorative markers, and heritage institutions – the question on what to do with symbols of South African histories and how to deal with them against the backdrop of preservation and conservation in the post-embedded conflict society, remains unclear.

Legislative framework

Whereas the NDP 2030 is advancing a social cohesion vision, section 37 of the South African Heritage Act, No 25 of 1999, protects public monuments and memorials from any form of altering, damaging, or relocation and prescribes a minimum requirement before any form of action is taken. Although the Act is advancing the protection of heritage resources, an interpretation of the Act is that it makes provision for the re-imagination, creative, and responsible review of heritage in a post-embedded conflict society, thus broadening the heritage landscape through reconfiguration discourse of re-interpretation, re-appropriation, relocation, and removal. It is a balancing act with embedded and enmeshed complexities.

Emancipatory claim-making in the quest for spatial parity

The statue debates continue to be characterised by a polarised disposition. At the one end of the continuum are individuals who hold a strong view and advocate for the ‘cleaning’ of what is deemed painful reminders of past atrocities in the public, which is now accessible to all. On the other end of the continuum are individuals arguing for the juxtaposition model. The process of striving towards a space for equity (cf. socio-spatial justice) and inclusion – needless to say – requires the asking of some difficult questions.

Towards the inclusion end, the argument is for spatial re-imagination that will have the courage to disrupt homogeneity and advance heterogeneity in pursuit of a spatial landscape where differences intersect, influence each other, and hybridise in pursuit of dialogic engagements and transformative output.

The UFS and the MT Steyn statue – a transparent and consultative approach

True to the ideals of a contemporary university, which is an intellectual space that encourages new ideas, controversy, inquiry, and argument, and which challenges orthodox views, the UFS has approached the call to remove the MT Steyn statue from the Bloemfontein Campus of the university in a transparent and consultative manner, respecting the different views and perspectives. In fact, the UFS adopted an Integrated Transformation Plan (ITP) in late 2017, aiming at an institution ‘where its diverse people feel a sense of common purpose and where symbols and spaces, systems and daily practices all reflect commitment to inclusivity, openness and engagement’ – the ITP, which embodies social justice, was used as the framework for engagement on the MT Steyn statue.

The South African Constitution, which celebrates the diversity of our nation, upholds the rights of all people to freedom of speech, and specifically protects academic freedom. To shut down the right to speak or ask questions in the context of a public debate is unacceptable in a democratic society. Rude or violent behaviour rarely serves to change how people think about any particular issue – on the contrary, it polarises views and makes it harder to listen to one another.

In this engagement process on the statue, it was important for members of the UFS community to exercise tolerance to listen, to engage with strongly divergent views, and to do so in a manner that is respectful, so that it expands the space for debate. This indeed happened through seminars, public lectures, panel discussions, radio and television interviews, and public opinion pieces. Through these engagements, four options were put forward in relation to the MT Steyn
statue:

• The statue remains as it is,

• The statue remains as it is, and the space around the statue is reconceptualised,

• The statue is relocated to another position on campus, and

• The statue is relocated off campus

Part of the engagement was a heritage impact assessment (HIA) with a public participation process. The public participation process (60 days) included the exhibition of a reflective triangular column erected in front of the statue, primarily to keep the statue topical, but it also edited the statue out of its power position if viewed from the east along the main axis from the city of Bloemfontein. Public notices and advertisements were placed in both local and national newspapers, while the family of President Steyn was kept informed of developments.

Although the call to remove the statue has challenged and re-energised a critical engagement around the purpose of a university in an unequal society – both as a site of complicity and as a potential agent for social change – the call should never be interpreted as an attack on President Steyn (the person), but rather what a 2 m tall statue represents for a changing student and staff demographic on the UFS campuses.

Honouring the legislative processes through the Free State Provincial Heritage Resources Authority, the UFS Council approved the relocation of the MT Steyn statue from the university campus to the War Museum in Bloemfontein – the ‘dignified’ dismantling of the MT Steyn statue took place on 27 June 2020. With the statue at the War Museum, Steyn’s contribution as an anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist will be fully understood by all South Africans in the context of the South African War, as portrayed by the museum.

Reimaging an inclusive public space faces many obstacles and challenges in engaging with existing spatial markers, differences, diversity, and cultural heterogeneity in creative and productive ways. However, the path followed by the UFS to relocate the MT Steyn statue creates a unique opportunity for a discussion on how spatial re-interpretation can promote inclusivity and meaning of space in a sustainable manner that balances the intricacies of the past, the present, and the future. All considered, it is a difficult process; but change cannot just be for the sake of change, there should be an emancipatory claim in the quest for a just society, advancing reasoning over rage.

Opinion article by Motsaathebe Serekoane, Lecturer: Anthropology, and Prof Francis Petersen: Rector and Vice-Chancellor, University of the Free State

News Archive

Volksblad: Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture

2006-05-27

27 Mei 2006

Moshoeshoe het mense saamgebind
KONING MOSHOESHOE kon bewys dat verskeidenheid ’n bindende eienskap kan wees. Dit blyk ’n sleutelbeginsel van sy leierskap te wees – en dit is nie ’n maklike een om te begryp nie.

Jy bereik die grootste eenheid tussen onderskeidende entiteite waar jy relatief vrye ruimte aan hulle gee om hul eiesoortige kenmerke na vore te bring.

Dít blyk uit prof. Njabulo Ndebele se gedenklesing oor koning Moshoeshoe.
Lesotho; het; onder Moshoeshoe se leierskap mense van verskeie dele van die subkontinent gelok.
Dié mense het hierheen gevlug van die verwoesting wat as lifaqane bekend geword het toe Shaka sy koninkryk met militêre onderwerping verstewig het.

Ndebele het gesê daar is algemene ooreenkoms dat die oorloë wat hieruit gespruit het, die maatskaplike grondslae van talle samelewings in Suider-Afrika geskud het.

“Dit was in dié konteks dat Moshoeshoe leierskap getoon het.”
Prof. Frederick Fourie, rektor en visekanselier van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV), het gesê die lesing vorm deel van ’n groter debat oor leierskapmodelle, veral die konsep van Afrika-leierskap, en die voortgesette diskoers oor nasiebou en versoening.

Die Moshoeshoe-projek is in 2004 aan die UV begin om met Suid-Afrika se eerste dekade van demokrasie saam te val.
Die projek was deel van die UV se eeufeesvieringe in 2004.
Met dié projek word geprobeer om ’n groot Afrika-leier te vereer en die UV se verbintenis tot transformasie te toon sodat ’n ware inklusiewe en nie-rassige universiteit geskep kan word.

“As die stigter van die Basoeto-nasie, word daar wyd erkenning aan koning Moshoeshoe vir sy buitengewone leierskapstyl gegee.

“Diplomasie, versoening en vreedsame naasbestaan is van die kenmerke van sy leierskap, soos getoon in sy pogings om verskillende groepe in een nasie te verenig,” sê Fourie.

KONING MOSHOESHOE, een van Afrika se eertydse groot leiers. Hy is meer as 130 jaar gelede dood. Foto: verskaf

Waarde van openbare spraak ‘nou bedreig’
AANDUIDINGS bestaan dat die waarde van openbare spraak wat hoog deur koning Moshoeshoe van Lesotho op prys gestel is, nou onder ernstige bedreiging kan wees.

Om dié rede dra hy die koning Moshoeshoe-gedenklesing op aan al dié mense in Suid-Afrika en elders wat die moed het om hul oorwoë mening uit te druk oor belangrike sake wat die samelewing in die gesig staar, het prof. Njabulo Ndebele, visekanselier van die Universiteit van Kaapstad, gesê.

Ndebele, wêreldbekende skrywer, het gesê dié lesing kom op ’n kritieke punt in Suid-Afrika se nuwe demokrasie.
Dié lesing, om die buitengewone nalatenskap van een van Afrika se groot leiers te eer, is eergisteraand op die kampus van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) gelewer en het ’n staande toejuiging deur ’n groot gehoor uitgelok.

Ndebele het gesê die mense wat hul menings uitdruk oor belangrike sake, kan rubriekskrywers, redakteurs, kommentators, alle soorte kunstenaars, akademici, koerantbriefskrywers, nie-gewelddadige optoggangers met plakkate en strokiesprentkunstenaars wees “wat ’n spieël voor ons oë sit”.

“Selfs wanneer hulle dit waag op heilige gebied, soos sommige strokiesprentkunstenaars onlangs gedoen het, herinner hulle ons net dat selfs die heilige misbruik kan word vir doeleindes wat min met heiligheid te doen het.

“Dit is hul manier om ons te help, dalk meer diepsinnig as wat ons besef, om daardie einste ruimte van heiligheid in ons lewe te bewaar.

“Hulle verdiep ons insigte deur ons begrip te verdiep.
“Dit is gepas om hul dapperheid te vier,” het Ndebele gesê.
“Hulle herinner ons dat leierskap nie al is wat ons doen wanneer ons in ’n sekere magsposisie geplaas is om ’n organisasie of ’n sekere instelling te stuur nie.”

Hy het gesê onder die mense wat gevier moet word, sluit hy nie dié in wat deur haatspraak ander aanhits om geweld te pleeg; teen; mense; wat hul andersdenkende menings lug nie.

“Dit is nie met dapperheid dat hulle aanhits nie, maar weens hul toevlug tot die narkotiese beskerming van die skare.”

Mense voel glo ál kwesbaarder
Vise-kanselier lewer Moshoeshoe-gedenklesing
’n TOENEMENDE aantal hoogs intelligente, sensitiewe en toegewyde Suid-Afrikaners oor die klas-, ras- en kulturele spektrum heen bely dat hulle – soos nog nooit tevore nie – onseker en kwesbaar voel sedert 1994.

Só het prof. Njabulo Ndebele, vise-kanselier van die Universiteit van Kaapstad, gesê in die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) se eerste koning Moshoeshoe-gedenklesing.

Die onderwerp was Reflections on the leadership challenges in South Africa.
Wanneer ontembare optimiste beken hulle voel dinge is van stryk, versprei die naarheid van angs. “Dit moet iets te doen hê met ’n ophoping van gebeure wat die gevoel van dreigende inploffing oordra.”

’n Gevoel heers dat Suid-Afrika ’n baie komplekse samelewing het wat liewer eenvoudige, gesentraliseerde beheer voortbring in die hoop dat dienslewering dan beter en vinniger gedryf kan word. Die kompleksiteit van beheer word dan in ’n enkele struktuur van gesag gevestig, eerder as in die afgewentelde strukture soos wat in die Grondwet beoog word.

Dat die afgewentelde strukture nie hul grondwetlik-gedefinieerde rolle verwerklik nie, moenie toegeskryf word aan die mislukking van die beheermeganisme nie.

“Dit is te vroeg om te sê dat wat ons sedert 1994 bereik het, nie gewerk het nie,” het Ndebele gesê.
Dit lyk of ’n kombinasie van omstandighede tot die “gevoel van ontknoping” lei.
“Ek wil dit vermy om te sê: ‘Kyk na Khutsong’, asof u sal verstaan wat ek bedoel wanneer ek sê u moet na Khutsong kyk.”
Sulke kennis lei tot wanhoop, want dit roep ’n werklikheid op wat só oorweldigend is dat dit fatalisties kan wees.
Ndebele het gesê niks kon meer vreesaanjaend wees as toe ’n komplot van die Boeremag oopgevlek en sekere Boeremaglede aangekeer is nie.

Sekere Boeremaglede het van ’n maksimum-sekuriteit-tronk ontsnap. “Sover ek weet, is hulle nie weer gevang nie.
“Wat is gedoen om die gaping te oorbrug?” was een van sy vrae hieroor.
“Van só ’n belangrike saak weet die publiek nie baie nie. Die karige kommunikasie kan die gevaarlike boodskap uitdra dat óf niks gedoen word nie, óf die staat in dié saak misluk.”

Hy het gevra: “Hoekom het die kwessie van munisipale afbakening tot die situasie in Khutsong gelei? Dit lyk of die probleem voortgaan, sonder ’n oplossing in sig.”

’n Aantal soortgelyke, oënskynlik plaaslike rebellies het oor die land heen plaasgevind. “Is hier ’n patroon?”
Ndebele het na die onlangse verhoor van oud-adj.pres. Jacob Zuma, wat van verkragting aangekla was, verwys.
Dié drama blyk ver van oor te wees. Dit beloof “om ons almal sonder verligting te hou, in ’n toestand van angs”.
Die gemene draad van dié gebeure is die gevoel van ’n oneindige spiraal van probleme wat vertroue tap. Daar kan ’n sterk suggestie in al dié gebeure wees “dat ons dalk nooit sosiale samehang in Suid-Afrika gehad het nie...”

“Wat ons sekerlik oor dekades gehad het, is ’n mobiliserende visie. Kan dit wees dat die mobiliserende visie onder die gewig van die werklikheid en omvang van maatskaplike heropbouing kraak en dat die legitieme raamwerk om oor dié probleme te debatteer ineenstort?”

‘Swart mense staar hulself in die gesig’
DIE swart meerderheid staar homself nou in die gesig: dalk werklik vir die eerste keer sedert 1994.
Só het prof. Njabulo Ndebele gesê toe hy die koning Moshoeshoe-gedenklesing by die Universiteit van die Vrystaat in Bloemfontein gelewer het.

Hy het gesê dit lyk of Suid-Afrika ’n meganisme nodig het om selfvertroue te bou.
Deur dié meganisme “kan ons die situasie waarin ons is, erken, wat dit ook al is”.
“Ons het ’n meganisme nodig wat die verskillende posisies van die mededingers sal bevestig en hul eerlikheid sal bekragtig op ’n manier wat die publiek vertroue sal gee dat werklike oplossings moontlik is.”

Dit is dié soort “openheid wat nooit maklik kom nie”, wat lei tot deurbraak-oplossings.
Ndebele het gesê ’n komplekse demokrasie soos Suid-Afrika s’n kan nie oorleef met ’n enkele gesag nie.
Net veelvuldige owerhede binne ’n grondwetlike raamwerk “het ’n ware kans”.
“Kan ’n deel van die probleem wees dat ons nie in staat is om die idee van ‘opposisie’ te hanteer nie?
“Ons is verskrik dat enige van ons ‘die opposisie’ kan word.
“Dit is tyd dat ons die koms voorsien van ’n oomblik wanneer daar nie meer ’n enkele, oorweldigende, dominante politieke mag is soos wat nou die geval is nie.”

Ndebele het gesê: “Ek glo ons het dalk ’n oomblik bereik wat nie fundamenteel verskillend is nie van die ontnugterende, tóg hartversterkende nasiebourealiteite wat gelei het tot Kemptonpark in die vroeë jare negentig.”

“Die verskil tussen toe en nou is dat die swart meerderheid nie nou na wit landgenote oor die onderhandelingstafel kyk nie.

“Die swart meerderheid staar homself in die gesig: dalk werklik vir die eerste keer sedert 1994.”
Dit is weer “tyd vir visie”, het Ndebele gesê.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept