Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
27 July 2021 | Story Nombulelo Shange and Ntando Sindane | Photo Unsplash
Opinion article by Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, and Ntando Sindane, Lecturer in the Department of Private Law, University of the Free State

Opinion article by Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, and Ntando Sindane, Lecturer in the Department of Private Law, University of the Free State


The recent protests were originally sparked by the arrest of former president Jacob Zuma. His arrest might have started the protests, but the protests have arguably spiralled into something far greater. These protests/riots mirror the consequences of what happens when people live in extreme poverty, joblessness, and brazen inequality.  

On Monday evening, 12 July, President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the nation and condemned the actions of the protesters. Ramaphosa missed the opportunity to appeal to the protesters as people; to identify with their daily struggles and speak to them from the space of genuine concern and empathy. Instead, President Ramaphosa delegitimised the protests, claiming that the violence and damage to property goes against the nature of protest. The resultant outcome of Ramaphosa’s utterances is that it has succeeded in whitewashing protest and, in some way, eroding emancipatory revolutions such as our own fight against colonialism and apartheid. 

A brief history of protest in South Africa

Protests are disruptive in their very nature – when this disruption is responded to by the deployment of state machinery (such as the army), it follows that the protests culminate into utter violence, and even bloodshed. It is important to note that protests are the product of severe discontent – people are waging mass actions precisely because they feel that their voices are not being heard, and these mass mobilisations may take the form of violence. Various anti-apartheid movements have adopted similar strategies in the fight for freedom. The fight for freedom and against apartheid colonialism was won through mass mobilisation, and this included riots and protests. It is indeed true that liberation movements have used protest as a decisive tool to resist racist apartheid polity and demand the non-racial and democratic South Africa that we see today. Such a reality (and historical background) makes it somewhat bizarre to comprehend how a leader of the liberation movement can use apartheid-like characterisations to denote and refer to protests and protesters. To be sure, President Ramaphosa’s articulation is emblematic of deep-seated forgetfulness within the ruling party, and the political elite at its helm. 

MK and Poqo (from the ANC and PAC respectively) were labelled terrorists by the government of the National Party. Even former President Nelson Mandela, now a global symbol for peace and reconciliation, has led and engaged in protest action to fight for the rights and dignity of marginalised South Africans. Of course, history lends perspective, and as a result, it would be incorrect to suggest that Nelson Mandela, MK and Poqo were inherently violent, because hindsight allows us to understand that the nature of the struggle in which they were engaged made ‘violence’ necessary.

A deepened discourse about violence reveals that poverty is far more violent and dehumanising than the violence that Ramaphosa was condemning this week. Upon closer inspection, Ramaphosa would be empowered if someone were to teach him that protests offer some hope for change, no matter how small, while doing nothing launches people deeper and deeper into poverty and repression. These are the difficult decisions that many had to make then and now. Poverty is the highest form of violence – it imputes indignity, it kills, and recreates itself as it transmutes into different forms between generations. The violence of poverty is evidenced in its ability to dehumanise people by stealing from them their humanity and their capability to lead a full lifestyle. This is a sort of violence that is hardly spoken about, because in a capitalist society, the only violence that is heeded is one that disturbs profit maximisation and the accumulation of private property. 

Whitewashing protest

Protesters are not looting because it is fun, protest is not pretty, and it comes at great personal risk to the protesters and their families. To invoke a Fanonian expression: “When we revolt it’s not for a particular culture. We revolt simply because, for many reasons, we can no longer breathe.” People engage in protest action because the South African government protects capitalist structures over its people and has perpetuated a hungry society. People are hungry for resources, real empowerment, education, and economic freedom. To label their actions as illegitimate glosses over their pain like it is meaningless and it whitewashes protest, thus negating our own protest history. 

President Ramaphosa’s discrediting of these actions also further criminalises the actions of what has been a patient citizenry that had to grapple with staggering unemployment, with the youth feeling the biggest brunt at 73,3% unemployment. When President Ramaphosa painted the protestors in this light, he also reinforced a dangerous anti-black, anti-poor sentiment which Steve Biko referred to as ‘Swart Gevaar’, which translates to black danger. During apartheid, it was the fear that black people would take over and threaten the safety and security of white people. Today, on social media pages and in the president’s address it is the fear that the poor, who are still predominately black, will threaten the ‘peace and stability’ of the minority middle class and elite through their protest action. 

No peace while poverty prevails 

The reality is that there is no peace and security while poverty prevails, and to restore stability without dismantling the capitalism system that brought us colonialism and apartheid, is to damn the majority back into poverty. These violent events will continue to take place and will become more and more violent with every passing moment if poverty is not eradicated as a matter of urgency. 


News Archive

You touch a woman, you strike a rock
2004-11-02

Prof. Engela Pretorius van die Departement Sosiologie in die Fakulteit Geesteswetenskappe by die Universiteit van die Vrystaat het die kwessie omtrent feminisme aangespreek tydens haar intreerede met die onderwerp, You touch a woman, you strike a rock: Feminism(s) and emancipation in South Africa .

Prof. Pretorius het gesê: “Die geskiedenis van feminisme oor die algemeen kan in drie fases verdeel word, waarna verwys word as golwe. Eerste-golf-feminisme (19de eeu) het die fokus geplaas op die beskerming van vroueregte in die openbare terrein, spesifiek die reg om te stem, die reg tot onderrig en die reg om middelklas beroepe en professies te betreë.

Vroeë tweede-golf-feminisme word onthou vir hoe dit moederskap geteoretiseer het as synde ‘n onderdrukkende instelling. Slagspreuke van die 1970s was die persoonlike is polities en susterskap is magtig. Prof. Pretorius sê beide slagspreuke bevestig die idee dat vroue universeel onderdruk en uitgebuit word en slegs deur erkenning van dié situasie kan vroue die strukture wat hul onderdruk verander.

‘n Belangrike aspek van die derde golf van die feminisme-teorie is post-moderne feminisme wat diversiteit en verskille onderstreep. Die poging van hierdie feministe is afgestem op alle vorme van onderdrukking. Vroue van kleur het ook hul ontevredenheid uitgespreek gedurende die derde-golf-feminisme. Die feminisme van vroue van kleur word gekenmerk deur verskeie kwessies en talryke intellektuele standpuntinnames wat neerslaga vind in verskillende terme, soos Afrika feminisme of ‘womanism, sê prof. Pretorius.

Afrika-feminisme dui protes aan teen die wit/westerse geskiedenis en die wit/westerse dominansie binne feminisme. Afrika-vroue het besef dat hul onderdrukking verskillend is van dié van wit vroue en daarom is ‘n ander proses van bevryding nodig. Die Westerse feministiese praktyk om swart vroue by die bestaande feministiese ontologie te voeg, is nie voldoende nie omdat hul unieke ondervindings van slawerny, kolonialisme, onderdrukking deur mans en armoede nie uitgedruk word nie.

‘Womanism’ het tot stand gekom as gevolg van ‘n eksplisiete rassekritiek teen feminisme. Dit is ten gunste van die positiewe uitbeelding van swart mense. Dit word gekenmerk deur kulturele kontekstualisasie, die sentraliteit van die gesin en die belangrikheid daarvan om mans in te sluit.

Die geskiedenis van vroue in Suid-Afrika is verwant aan hul geskiedenis van onderdrukking as gevolg van patriargie. Vroue van verskillende rasse, kulture en klasse het patriargie op verskillende wyses in en variërende mate van erns ervaar. Onder voor-koloniale patriargie het vroue min sê gehad oor huwelikskeuses omdat mans dié besluite gedomineer het.

Die Nederlandse en Britse patriargale erfenis het neerslag gevind in die ideologie van die volksmoeder. Onderwyl dit veral manlike skrywers was wat die beeld van die vrou as versorger en tuisteskepper bevorder het, het vroue self ook hieraan ‘n aandeel gehad, sodat die volksmoeder volwaardig deel geword het van die Afrikaner nasionalistiese mitologie. Alhoewel middel- en werkersklas vroue met dié beeld geïdentifiseer het, het nie alle Afrikaanse vroue die ideologie aanvaar nie.

Onder die Victoriaanse erfenis was Britse vroue beperk to die private eerder as die openbare lewe. Die skeefgetrekte onderrigsisteem wat vroue in huishoudelike loopbane gekanaliseer het, die mag van mans oor hul vroue se eiendom en ‘n tekort aan toegang tot mag en geld het verseker dat vroue by die huis gebly het.

Wit Engelssprekende-vroue het die grootste geleentheid gehad om patriargie uit te daag vanweë hul toegang tot onderwys en die blootstelling aan liberale waardes, sê prof. Pretorius. Liberale vroue soos Helen Joseph en Helen Suzman het ‘n belangrike rol gespeel om in 1930 stemreg vir wit vroue in Suid-Afrika te verseker en het voortgegaan om ‘n rol te speel in die bevryding van swart vroue gedurende die vryheidstryd.

Die feminisme wat onder swart vroue ontwikkel het, was ‘n erkenning van die gemeenskaplike stryd met swart mans om die verwydering van die juk van eksterne onderdrukking en eksploitasie. Swart vroue in aktiewe en onafhanlike politiese rolle het tegelykertyd mans se aannames omtrent hul meerderwaardigheid asook die rassewette van die staat uitgedaag. Daarom kan ons sê dat die feminisme wat hier ontwikkel het, te voorskyn gekom het as gevolg van vroue se betrokkenheid by en toewyding tot nasionale bevryding, sê prof. Pretorius.

Institusionalisering is nie herlei tot magsvoordele nie, want gelykheid is nie in beleidsprogramme geïnkorporeer nie. Die hervestiging van sleutel aktiviste van die vrouebeweging in die regering het die stryd om genderbillikheid verander na ‘n projek wat deur die regering gelei word, sê prof. Pretorius. Ongelukkig word terreine van verandering buite die grense van die regering verwaarloos. Dit kan slegs aangespreek word deur ‘n aktiewe en feministiese stem in die burgerlike samelewing.

“Dit is my oortuiging dat formele instellings vir vroue binne die staat oor die lang termyn slegs effektief kan wees indien daar ‘n effektiewe feministiese vroue-beweging buite die staat in stand gehou word wat die grondslag waarop sosiale beleid gevorm word, kan uitdaag en bevraagteken. Daarom, A luta continua (die stryd duur voort),” sê prof. Pretorius.

Mediaverklaring
Uitgereik deur: Lacea Loader
Mediaverteenwoordiger
Tel: (051) 401-2584
Sel: 083 645 2454
E-pos: loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
2 November 2004

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