Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
30 October 2024 Photo Supplied
Bokang Fako
Bokang Fako, Research Assistant at the Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Bokang Fako, Research Assistant at the Free State Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of the Free State.


It has been an eventful year, with historical highlights in our country. This year marks 30 years since we were declared a democratic state and the same year we held our 7th general elections, the results of which produced a Government of National Unity (GNU). October 2024 also marks 34 years since Africa’s first Gay Pride march, which took place on 13 October 1990 in Johannesburg. The march was organised by Simon Nkoli, together with Beverly Ditsie, Edwin Cameron, and other activists who were part of the GLOW collective. On this day, about 800 members of the LGBTQA+ community gathered to celebrate their queer identities and speak against the discrimination they continued to endure under the apartheid regime. They highlighted their experiences as black people who were also queer who had to navigate a racist and sexist regime that continued to marginalise them.

This year’s historical events serve as a reminder of how nuanced, multiplicitious and intertwined our experiences and struggles are as a country. Yet there exists a dominant narrative that is biased and rooted in a heterosexist mandate that essentialises a one-sided experience which distorts the complete story. The danger of amplifying one part of history while suppressing the other parts results in the erasure of significant parts of history which make up the entire narrative. We are left with experiences that have been assumed to represent the experiences of the entire people. If we do not speak or write about South African Pride Month with the same enthusiasm as we are about other historical events, we are not telling the whole truth.

This perpetual epistemic erasure of minority groups from historical narratives is why I want to accentuate Simon Tseko Nkoli’s intersectional activism during the apartheid regime and how his work has significantly influenced this country’s socio-political trajectory. The current narrative around apartheid and the progressive political figures who were involved in the struggle is one that is biased, only celebrating mainstream figures who are often cis-heterosexual men, instead of black women and queer people.

Nkoli’s activism embodies the tenets of intersectional feminism, which teaches us to acknowledge the multidimensional experiences of black women in the context of how areas of class, gender, race and sexuality interact with one another and the distinct levels of discriminations these produce. Intersectional feminism basically argues that, due to layered identities, cis-heterosexual black men experience racism far differently to how black queer women experience it. It becomes imperative for anti-discrimination interventions to centre this approach into attempts to eradicate discrimination.

At the time when black people were oppressed under the apartheid regime and the struggle was deemed to only be between blacks and whites, Nkoli, as a black gay man with a layered existence, did not compartmentalise his identities, nor did he prioritise one over the other. Nkoli recognised that it is not possible to be black first and gay second, that both issues are intertwined and can be linked to other social issues, including sexual health.

Anti-apartheid

Nkoli joined politics from a very early age. He formed part of the Congress of the South African Students (COSAS) where he served as a secretary and was almost forced to relinquish his position due to his sexuality but was eventually retained when his fellow comrades conceded to accept him for who he was. In 1984, Nkoli was arrested alongside 22 other political figures for protesting against the unfair increase of rents in Sebokeng. He, alongside his comrades, was detained and charged with treason, the sentence for which, was the death penalty. The charges were exaggerated because they were associated with the United Democratic Front (UDF) which was deemed a threat by the apartheid government. Their trial was notoriously known as the Delmas Treason Trial, the most prolonged political trial in the history of this country. Even while in prison for this matter, Simon’s sexuality was still a matter of contention. 

LGBTQIA+ rights

When he publicly declared his sexuality at the age at 20, he was met with resistance that was exacerbated by his anti-apartheid activism. The resistance was escalated by his romantic relationship with a white man, Roy Shepherd, because of the pervasive racial divisions. He was not deterred by this, which led to the establishment of the Gay and Lesbian Organisation of the Witswatersrand (GLOW) through which he would highlight the intersections between race and sexual identity and helped highlight the existence and experiences of LGBTQIA+ people during the apartheid regime. GLOW was formed as a deliberate deviation from the Gay and Lesbian Association (GASA), which was predominately white-led and non-political and did not speak out against racial issues. While working alongside other queer activists through GLOW, they organised the first Gay Pride in South Africa, the very first Gay Pride in Africa. Through this organisation they raised awareness about the lives and experiences of LGBTQIA+ people. The movement ensured that the rights of the LGBTQIA+ people are recognised and fully acknowledged in the new constitution as we transitioned into a democratic country.

“If you are black and gay in South Africa, then it really is all the same closet … inside is darkness and oppression. Outside is freedom.”

Sexual health activism

He experienced homophobia in prison and was diagnosed with HIV there but could not access medication for some time. He spoke openly about his diagnosis to raise awareness about the pandemic and eventually helped of form part of the Townships Aids Project and publicly identified as a “Positive African Man”. His advocacy on HIV and AIDS was instrumental in raising awareness about the virus, primarily because it was at a time when society was not heeding warning calls about practising safe sex. There was massive stigma around the disease and homosexuality. Meanwhile, more people were getting infected and ARVs were not freely available. Nkoli contextualised his blackness and sexuality in speaking about his status, access to medication and making sense of the HIV pandemic.

I believe South Africa’s historical narratives often erase Nkoli’s activism because he does not fit the conventional struggle-icon parameters which are rooted in hetero-patriarchal standards. His queer identity places him on the margins. His work was influential and important to the struggle, but always decentred, for similar reasons Nelson Mandela was more idolised than Winnie. Patriarchy thrives on placing black cis-gendered men on the pedestal, which is often at the expense and erasure of the minoritised groups.

Nkoli’s activism teaches an important lesson about the nuanced approach to social justice and anti-discrimination issues. I learnt from him that struggles are connected, and some inform the others or create new forms of discrimination. He simultaneously, prioritised being black, gay and living with HIV, to emphasise that our existence is not monolithic. It is because of Nkoli’s work that I recognise and speak for the struggle of black queer people, not only in South Africa, but across the continent, particularly where the criminalisation of homosexuality is still prevalent. We may be demarcated by borders or distinguished by social identities, but it would be ahistorical to disregard how our lives and experiences are intertwined, just as our histories of systems of violence and oppression are intertwined.

So when we theorise and discourse about South African history, when we commemorate and reflect on how far we have come, may we always remember Nkoli’s work because even in his death, he is as much of a struggle icon as the rest of them. 

News Archive

Media: Sunday Times
2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity
 

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

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