Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
25 April 2024 Photo Supplied
Khanya B Motshabi
Khanya B Motshabi is a Senior Lecturer of Public Law and the Strategy Lead of University of the Free State Africa Reparation Hub.

Opinion article by Khanya B Motshabi, Senior Lecturer of Public Law and Strategy Lead of UFS Africa Reparation Hub.


Unjustified injuries inevitably trigger demands for remediation, almost always, at some point.  If so, colonial-apartheid atrocities rightly produce claims to redress. This face of reparative justice claims is easily cognisable. But it hides a deeper and larger claim to wholeness. Wholeness returns something to its original condition, or nearly there, and compensates for intervening fissures. Return and reparation are thus key remedies for colonial-apartheid harms. Wholeness builds on such ideas as replacement, atonement, restoration, and restitution. Wholeness concepts recognise, enable, and propel national reconstruction, an essential for shattered nations. This logic is perfectly compelling. Appreciation of colonial-apartheid depredations may be faint. However, colonial-apartheid harms equate to major world system shocks. Think of natural and ecological disasters, public health crises and material armed conflict. Picture post-1945 Germany. Imagine post-Belgian genocide Congo. Take Rwanda post-genocide. And on, we could continue.

Inevitable calls for justice

Reparative justice scholarship must frame the imperative of global justice. It imagines the world of our dreams. These fit the emerging world system opportunities, including timing inflections, to which I return. The fundamental justice thrust of reparatory scholarship is as eternal, of course, as is unremedied unjust injury. This intellectual, and political, ambition fuels the University of the Free State (UFS) Africa Reparation Hub. Reparatory scholars must prove the historic injury. This is not a tool of attack, discomfiture, or division. It merely grounds the justice claim. Domain scholars must, directly and indirectly, articulate this justice claim. Accordingly, we must cement relationships with both the African Union (AU) and sub-continental multilateral organisations. The Reparation Hub helps formulate AU reparative claims across conceptual, legal, political, and diplomatic realms. The Hub is assembling a Panel of Experts on Africa Reparations Experts (PEAR). The hub is creating a comprehensive Africa reparations information archive and resource repository. Recently, the Hub, Department of Public Law and Faculty of Law hosted their first reparations seminar, with Prof Saleem Badat as leader and Prof Pearl Sithole as discussant. The Hub officially launches in June 2024. The Hub continues its reparatory justice research. Undergraduate and graduate teaching and learning programmes could and should follow, in well-chosen good time, with due protocols.

Building the framework for justice

Reparative scholarship inhabits an ethically and morally attractive moral universe. Subjugation of former colonists, often current neo-colonialists, does not belong there. That would be wrong. Indefensible. What we want is a world defined by justice. There, human security and a sound peace and community among nations are possible. The supplicant status of former colonies must be reversed. The current world order obstructs - effectively precludes - human rights realisation in the post-colony. Post-colonial human rights enjoyment rests not simply on abstractions like freedom, equality, dignity, separation of powers and the rule of law. Intrinsically, these abstractions offer obvious human rights and human dignity value. Less obvious is their contextually defective human rights proposition. That the lofty rhetoric, and ostensible principles, should easily co-exist with endemic violations is strange. Deliberate worldwide human abuses, including war and genocide, especially against dark coloured persons are strange, or should be, strange. One international hegemon was at peace for about fifteen units of its near 250-year life, only. A global power has militarily attacked an estimated 85 to 100 countries, merely between 1945 and 2011.

The archetypal victim is a global South human. This is a poor human rights formula for the mythological exotics, the ones who by general misperception, are deservedly subject races.  African peoples, lawyers and scholars hardly have coherent experiential human rights stories. Such is our history, past and present. That human totality has shared aspirations matters not a jot. That humanity shares the same earth-space community is an incidental and dismissible insight. 

Perforce, the foundation of global South human rights protection is different. Coloniality, or enduring post-colonial colonial relations, must end. Reparation must, among other things, reverse at least those development deficits connected to colonial exploitation. Reparation, in the material form, can restore some extracted economic value. As both end and means, reparation is essential for post-colonial human liberty and fulfilment. Accordingly, decoloniality and reparations inherently drive quality post-colonial human rights outcomes. Instrumentally, decoloniality and reparations enhance global South human rights realisation. Political design imperfections aside, the painfully emerging multipolar global democracy may offer superior human rights actualisation. Life is, in this sense, a gamble. We have no choice on that world architecture gamble. But the geopolitical recalibration, itself, is afoot and assured. So, reparative justice features in a precious trio: decoloniality, reparations and multipolarity. Under this trio lies a vital ontology: validly, dark peoples are indeed human and dark nations are indeed nations. Dark peoples legitimately claim, and truly enjoy, human rights and human dignity. That eminent scholar, Michael Riesman, illustrates acutely. Human rights and human dignity are not myth system. Human rights and human dignity are operational code, reality.

The path to human rights

The forecast multipolar, decolonial and reparative conditions present a signal world system opportunity. The timing seems apt. And the opportunity promises much. The constitutive work is currently underway, as is evidently though murky. The architecture is difficult to imagine, design and assemble. But our dreams are crisp and bright. We want and deserve to inhabit that new world. We, the Africans, have for too long been disposable, forgettable. A world order warm to African, African-descent and post-colonial peoples prizes multipolarity, decoloniality and reparation. Post-colonial human rights fulfilment presupposes this system design principle. The principle fuels African human rights and human dignity. So, its inherent priorities represent the world we want. There, international society defines, or punctuates, itself by human rights as multipolar, decolonial and reparative arrangements. The is the stuff of dreams. A world of dreams. The dreams of our children and their children. I previously claimed that ‘our children are the force behind the waves of history still to come.’ I repeat that claim. Supported by decoloniality, multipolarity and reparation, our descendants can shape human history and human rights. We dare not squander their legacy, not least through corruption and state capture. We want better. We must behave better. Decoloniality, multipolarity and reparative justice promise, and demand, better. Then, post-colonial human rights actualisation might be optimal.        

News Archive

Academic delivers inaugural lecture on South African foreign policy
2007-08-06

 

In her inaugural lecture Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Department of Political Sciences, focused on the impact that Pan-Africanist sentiments have had on South Africa’s foreign policy. She also put the resulting contradictions and ambiguities into context. At her inaugural lecture were, from the left: Proff. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS), Heidi Hudson, Engela Pretorius (Vice-Dean: Faculty of The Humanities) and Daan Wessels (Research Associate in the Department of Political Science).
Photo: Stephen Collett

Academic delivers inaugural lecture on South African foreign policy

“We are committed to full participation as an equal partner … opposed to any efforts which might seek to project South Africa as some kind of superpower on our continent. … the people of Africa share a common destiny and must therefore … address their challenges … as a united force...” (Mbeki 1998:198-199).

Prof. Heidi Hudson from the Department of Political Science referred to this statement made by president Mbeki (made at the opening of the OAU Conference of Ministers of Information in 1995) when she delivered her inaugural lecture on the topic: South African foreign policy: The politics of Pan-Africanism and pragmatism.

One of the questions she asked is: “Can the South African state deliver democracy and welfare at home while simultaneously creating a stable, rules-based African community?”

She answers: “South Africa needs to reflect more critically and honestly on the dualism inherent in its ideological assumptions regarding relations with Africa. South Africa will always be expected by some to play a leadership role in Africa. At the moment, South Africa’s desire to be liked is hampering its role as leader of the continent.”

In her lecture she highlighted the ideological underpinnings and manifestations of South Africa’s foreign policy. Throughout she alluded to the risks associated with single-mindedly following an ideologically driven foreign policy. She emphasised that domestic or national interests are the victims in this process.

Prof. Hudson offers three broad options for South Africa to consider:

  • The Predator – the selfish bully promoting South African economic interest.
  • Mr Nice Guy – the non-hegemonic partner of the African boys club, multilaterally pursuing a pivotal but not dominant role.
  • The Hegemon - South Africa driving regional integration according to its values and favouring some African countries over others, and with checks and balances by civil society.

She chooses option three of hegemony. “Politically correct research views hegemony as bad and partnership as good. This is a romanticised notion – the two are not mutually exclusive,” she said.

However, she states that there have to be prerequisites to control the exercise of power. “The promotion of a counter-hegemon, such as Nigeria, is necessary. Nigeria has been more effective in some respects than South Africa in establishing its leadership, particularly in West Africa. Also needed is that government should be checked by civil society to avoid it sinking into authoritarianism. The case of business and labour coming to an agreement over the HIV/Aids issue is a positive example which illustrates that government cannot ignore civil society. But much more needs to be done in this regard. South Africa must also be very careful in how it uses its aid and should focus potential aid and development projects more explicitly in terms of promoting political stability,” she said.

Prof. Hudson said: “It is also questionable whether Mbeki’s Afro-centrism has in fact promoted the interests of ordinary citizens across Africa. Instead, elite interests in some countries have benefited. But ultimately, the single most important cost is the damage done to the moral code and ethical principles on which the South African Constitution and democracy is founded.

“In the end we all lose out. More pragmatism and less ideology in our relations within Africa may just be what are needed,” she said.

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