Foreign Policy: Making Up Is Hard To Do

The pursuit of national reconciliation came under significant pressure in 2011.The controversy around the wording of amendments to the Employment Equity Act, the Julius Malema hate speech trial, the reactionary response of several predominantly white organisations to Desmond Tutu’s call for a tax on apartheid beneficiaries, and Eric Miyeni’s racialised attack on City Press editor Ferial Haffajee, all reflect that much more needs to be done to create platforms where non-threatening conversations can shape social cohesion and inclusive outcomes. At best, the current status of the national reconciliation project is one of ‘unfinished business’.

Today South Africans commemorate the 17^th National Day of Reconciliation, but many are unsure of the prospects for true reconciliation. According to the 2011 round of the SA Reconciliation Barometer Survey, conducted annually by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR), 59% of South Africans feel that the country has become more reconciled since 1994. Just less half (47%) feel the TRC succeeded in bringing about reconciliation. However, only 36% agreed that they have personally experienced any form of reconciliation in their own lives. 22% noted that they have not, and the remainder were uncertain whether their experiences merit the term ‘reconciliation’. The latter finding – uncertainty about what the term really constitutes – may be telling in itself.

The fact that so few South Africans have personally experienced reconciliation in their own lives is indicative of two things. The first points to a finding in this year’s survey that the vast majority of South Africans are not socialising, or have never socialised, across the barriers of the country’s historically-defined racial categories. According to the 2011 SARB results, less than one-fifth of all South Africans (18.7%) regularly socialise with people they view to be of another race group. An additional one-fifth (20.6%) do so sometimes, and 59.1% rarely or never do.

We do seem to gather in neutral spaces during big sports events like the Soccer World Cup, but quickly retreat to comfortable, homogenous and racially-defined spaces once the party is over. The results show that more than half of all South Africans (55.3%) agree that they find the ‘ways and customs’ of other groups difficult to understand, and one-third (34.1%) that they do not trust them.

The expectation of social discomfort or a lack of commonality seems to be a profound deterrent to efforts to increase socialisation. One of the IJR focus groups participants, a professional woman, describes her experience after having been invited to the home of a neighbour from another group as follows:  ‘I sat there, we talked about the kids and the weather, but there is nothing else to talk about, you are so afraid to talk about things’. The survey data seem to confirm this sentiment. Most South Africans feel safest in identity-based groups, defined either by race, language and ethnicity. The choice of these intransigent categories, above association on the basis of a common South African identity, give credence to such observations.

Our unwillingness to move outside our own exclusive groups serves to reinforce the typical stereotypes we have about the ‘other’. Our constitution has provided the context for tolerance, and as a result most South Africans would today frown upon blatant racism. But tolerance far from enough for reconciliation. People like Prof. Jonathan Jansen highlight the need to acknowledge and accommodate other narratives and to move away from the stereotypes of ‘perpetrator’ or ‘victim’. This, of course, will require the creation of more inclusive safe spaces where we can listen and share our experiences. These spaces must offer individuals the safety to confront their own prejudice, but also to reach out without the cynicism that often accompanies attempts to breach historical divides.

These efforts will however be in vain if we do not address the material indignity that apartheid has inflicted amongst the majority of citizens.  Consecutive rounds of the survey have found that, when prompted to identify the most divisive feature of our society, the majority have pointed to the material inequality between rich and poor South Africans. Thirty-two per cent (32%) of South Africans feel that the gap between rich and poor represents the single biggest source of division in the country, followed by political party membership (22%) and race (20%). Forty-six per cent (46%) believe reconciliation is ‘impossible’ for as long as people who were disadvantaged under apartheid continue to be poor. Regardless of this, 66% still believe that national unity is a desirable goal for the country to pursue.

As we move further away from the moment of birth of our democratic dispensation, it should become increasingly apparent that mere gestures of tolerance are not enough. They do not provide the better life that many have fought and died for. Racial integration may be an ultimate objective, but this will never materialise in the absence of economic inclusion.  This day should – above anything else -serve to create more momentum towards addressing this unfinished business of our transition.

Nyoka is the project leader of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation’s Inclusive Economies Project. A version of this article appeared in the Cape Times on 16 December 2011.

No 1: Sequencing the administration of justice to enable the pursuit of peace Tim Murithi

No 2: On Corruption in South Africa Lucía Tiscornia

No 3: L’opportunité de la mise en place de la Commission Vérité et Réconciliation au Burundi (Opportunities for setting up a TRC in Burundi)(English summary) Astère Muyango

No 4: Taming the demon of Kenya’s election violence Alice Nderitu

Briefs 5 and 6 will be out shortly!

EE and AA: Where to from here? Kate Lefko-Everett

A tribunal on apartheid? Rupert Taylor

When pragmatism becomes the only way out Jan Hofmeyr

Looking beyond Institutions: The social fabric of corruption Lucia Tiscornia

South Africa’s rainbow is fading Charlene Houston

Human rights protection still a work in progress Webster Zambara

The IJR will be closed from 15 December 2011 until 9 January 2012, but we wish you all the best for the holiday season!

Survey shows discord Moses Mackay, Sowetan

Public needs to participate in info bill Chantall Presence and Malungelo Booi, Eyewitness News

South Africans want a united nation – IJR Politicsweb

Economic freedom retards reconciliation, Sasha Planting, Moneyweb

Most S. Africans want unity – report Malungelo Booi, Eyewitness News

Survey finds local government is not delivering Crystal Orderson, SABC News

Now income dividing us, not race Yazeed Kamaldien, Independent Newspapers/Cape Times

Reconciliation a pipe dream without equality Michelle Pietersen, Daily News

On behalf of the Institute, we are pleased to announce that the full report can be viewed here. A press release with full contact details for media queries can also be accessed here.

As always, your feedback and comments are welcome!

Take heed of Tutu Tax Fanie du Toit

Diagnosis: We’re still divided Kate Lefko-Everett

Land reform and reconciliation Osiame Molefe

Youth at risk: Growing up with gangs Sharon Vermaak

A trial that should never have been Jan Hofmeyr

An ongoing search for Kenya’s panacea Allan Ngari

Entitled ‘The Power of One’, the keynote address will be delivered by gold medalist swimmer Natalie Du Toit, and will focus on reconciliation among youth in the Western Cape.

Venue: Life Sciences Auditorium, UWC, Modderdam Road, Belville

Details: 11 November 2011, from 15h00 to 19h00

RSVP: Sharon Vermaak, on sfebruary@ijr.org.za or (021) 763-7135

Lucia Tiscornia

The Supreme Court of Appeal last week heard final arguments in the appeal case of former police commissioner Jackie Selebi’s conviction and sentence on charges of corruption. Regardless of it outcome, the case has already done much to damage the image of the South African Police Service (SAPS). At the time of his guilty verdict, Judge Meyer Joffe intimated that, by mixing with shady figures, Selebi not only compromised his own reputation, but also that of the institution of the SAPS in the eyes of ordinary South Africans.

In a country where most citizens rate crime as one of the most prohibitive factors to their personal freedom, Selebi’s conviction at the time raised the concern that not even those who have been entrusted to uphold the law can be relied upon to do so in an accountable and transparent manner. If this is what happens in the police, many asked, how rife must it not be elsewhere?

In light of Selebi’s conviction, it was expected government would have thought long and hard about an appropriate successor, who could restore faith in the Office of the Commissioner of Police, but also contain and push back the negative spill-over effect it had on the reputation of the SAPS. Bheki Cele became Selebi’s permanent successor, but also his leadership has not escaped controversy, following Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s damning report on irregular expenditure relating to the procurement of office space for its national headquarters in Pretoria and provincial headquarters in Durban.

As a result, President Zuma’s announcement of Cele’s suspension, pending investigation, and the demotions of Public Works Minister, Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde and Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister, Sicelo Shiceka, in recent weeks have been widely welcomed. Actions like these send out a necessary message that non-transparent governance will not be tolerated and that no one, regardless of social standing, is immune to sanction. These actions have been positive steps towards ensuring greater accountability and transparency in the management of public funds at a time when the South African government is forced to become increasingly vigilant about unwarranted expenditure. In addition, the President’s action also won him vital political capital vis-a-vis his critics who have portrayed him as indecisive and unwilling to take unpopular but necessary action.

In all of this, the name of Public Protector Adv.Thuli Madonsela has featured prominently. Since she took over from her predecessor, Lawrence Mushwana, Madonsela has infused new life in an institution that some have come to regard as overly cautious in the extent to which it was willing to assert itself in relation to the executive. Unlike Mushwana, who was criticised for his apparent unwillingness to challenge alleged impropriety in higher offices, Madonsela has not shied away when confronted with instances like these.

In her the South African state has a committed public servant who appears to be willing to exercise her constitutional mandate without fear or favour. She has also given new stature to an institution that is critical to the functioning of any democratic state. Yet, institutions alone may not be enough, because they don’t function in isolation from the societies within which they are embedded. If new reports relating to Independent Complaints Directorate’s rental of new offices – incidentally also belonging to Roux Shabangu, implicated in Madonsela’s report – at exorbitant rates are accurate, it underscores the fact that maladministration cannot be addressed through institutions alone, regardless how functional they are.

If we are to regard corruption only as a consequence of maladministration, answers to its eradication could simply be sought in administrative reforms to make managerial practices more watertight. Yet, its scale and pervasiveness suggests that, although important, an over reliance on management change alone is likely to treat the symptoms, but not the causes. If, however, we broaden enquiry into the social relationships that facilitate it, we are more likely to reach viable and sustainable solutions to the problem. Such an approach is particularly necessary in South Africa with its exceptionally high levels of social inequality, manifested not only in income level disparities, but also in access to services and ability to exercise basic rights.

Because public institutions exercise a democratic mandate, it is perfectly reasonable of citizens to demand “good” institutions that are functional and able to deliver. Yet, whether institutions are “good” or “bad” cannot be separated from the context where they operate. This context is shaped by socio-economic circumstances, but also a political culture that becomes entrenched over time. Perceptions of legitimacy emanate from that context, and over time may also adapt to the relevant circumstances.

As such, it is inevitable that adherence to- and administration of legislation will over time become a function of what is acceptable and possible practice within a given context. This has relevance for the present; at this early stage in South Africa’s democratic development it is worth remembering that repeated practices – good or bad – will ultimately over time become entrenched patterns.

The current configuration of the country’s socio-economic sphere makes it in some ways more susceptible to the validation of practices that distort the impersonal nature of state bureaucracy. Its highly monopolized and unequal nature excludes many hence the state can become an obvious source of recourse for those who feel that their marginalization puts them at a disadvantage. If unchecked, such behaviour can become entrenched as illegal, but conveniently overlooked, modes of transacting amongst an exclusive, connected, and class – as opposed to race – based elite.

If anything, such a scenario should be a convincing argument to those that are still reticent towards affirmative measures that prioritise a more equitable and inclusive society. These policies, if implemented in the spirit within which they have been conceptualized, will not only be to the benefit of those that have been marginalized in the past, but all citizens who seek to prosper in an environment that creates more opportunity and less dependence.

Indeed, corruption speaks of a management problem and it is a crime. The commitment of the Public Protector and Pres. Zuma’s firm response to her report must be commended. The positive movement after many years on the Arms Deal Saga is also a significant development, since many have regarded this as an issue that has profoundly shaped conduct within our body politic. But ultimately, corruption – and most forms of maladministration – emerges from oppressive conditions that undermine opportunity, whether in the form of employment, education, or access to development finance. It does not excuse malpractice, but it needs to be understood in the context that breeds it.

Any government that claims to be working towards building a more inclusive society should therefore also view and treat the issue of corruption as symptomatic of processes of exclusion. And all those outside of government – civil society organisations and ordinary citizens – who are concerned with its impact, may, in addition to their emphasis on proper oversight, also consider how they will contribute and cooperate in this regard. Institutions may serve to hold back the tide, but they may not necessarily change long-term behaviour if material conditions are not amenable to it.

Lucía Tiscornia is a visiting research intern at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation from the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame University in the United States.