The
role of contemporary theory is significant in that it seeks to explain the
present through various narratives and discourses. One can argue that the
challenge for contemporary theory is to struggle with the current events in its
attempt to make sense of them and also to provide a critically analysis of why
the events are happening? How the events are happening? And why those
particular events are happening at a specific time and space? Furthermore, one
may also argue that it is also the role of contemporary theory to
philosophically discuss, what Frantz Fanon referred to as the “new politics”,
in not only critically analyzing current affairs and the status quo, but also
attempting to provide alternative ideas and solutions concerning how to improve
the current socio-economic status, at least philosophically (Fanon, 2001: 198).
The role of contemporary theory with regard to South Africa is of paramount
importance due to the colonial and apartheid history, whose repercussions are
still largely being felt by the marginalized and disenfranchised. This means
that South Africa as a state, which is rooted in the idea of reconciliation and
“ubuntu” in 1994, could be said to have certain subalterns who are still
trapped in economic apartheid in that they still don’t have basic service
delivery, access to housing and cannot access government grants. Furthermore,
one may argue that at this moment, contemporary theory is of significant
relevance to South Africa due to the large number of political protests, gender
based violence and the violent government reactions to organizations such as Abahlali baseMjondolo who choose to operate outside of the legitimate space of the
state, and thus are perceived as a threat. Contemporary theory could be used as
an instrument of discourse in not only analyzing current affairs and but also
in providing possible solutions (albeit philosophical) to remedy the status
quo.
Theodicy
and the South African state
Theodicy
refers to the biblical notion that God’s plan is too sophisticated and complex
for mere human beings to comprehend (Gordon, 2006: 85). This means that were
never human beings fail to live up to God’s commands, it is not God’s fault but
rather the people themselves who misuse their free will (Gordon, 2006: 86).
This theodician type of understanding is also seen in states and the
institutions which consolidate it, particularly in how were never certain
actions occur, it is not the fault of the state or its institutions, but rather
the people themselves who are automatically at fault. The state is perceived as
legitimate and democratic, and thus cannot be at fault as a ruling entity. In
context to South Africa, the notion of theodicy is seen in how the state and
the ruling African National Congress (ANC) with its alliance partners, uses
revolutionary discourse so as to revoke emotional solidarity and to position
the opposition and those who are critical as “counter revolutionaries” and
“forces of darkness” (Mantashe, 2012). An example includes the response of the
ANC’s Secretary General Gwede Mantashe to the police shooting at the Lonmin
Mine in Marikana, North West, were 34 miners were killed and 78 others were injured (Mantashe, 2012). Mantashe argued that
“counter-revolutionaries” were seeking to “undermine the tripartite alliance”
as they “hijacked” the entire Lonmin tragedy (Mantashe, 2012). One may argue
that rather than discussing the causes of the tragedy, Mantashe chooses to
perceive the state as innocent and rather blames both the domestic and
international criticism as over reacting and taking advantage of the tragedy.
One may admit that individuals such as Julius Malema have taken advantage of
the tragedy so as to position themselves as relevant in the current narratives
of the leadership struggle of the ANC. However having said that, it should be
emphasized that irrespective of the political actors and their objectives in
the tragedy, the state itself, as argued by Steven Friedman, should be blamed
due to the lack of training of public order police in managing strategically
violent protests (Friedman, 2012). Friedman’s argument breaks away from the
Mantashe-cum-theodician interpretation of the conflict which blames the
opposition and other individuals of taking advantage of the tragedy, and offers
an argument that is rooted in Lewis Gordon’s notion that rather than blaming
the individual, the state itself is the problem (Gordon, 2006: 85). In this
context, one may argue that South Africa can use contemporary theory to better
analyze the use of protest as a legitimize source of discontent. In addition,
contemporary theory could help highlight the relationship between the lack of
dignity of the subalterns and the increase in violent protests as a measure of
how modernization has left others behind (this will further be explained in the
essay).
Spasmodic
theory and the misrepresentation of the South African protests
A
spasmodic theory refers to the interpretation of events using a framework of
the biological. This means that whenever events occur, the spasmodic
interpretation views the biological need of the people as having necessitated
that particular occurrence. An example could be the rising number of protests
that are seen in South Africa. According to the Freedom of Expression Institute,
in 2006 alone South Africa experienced 11 000 protests, which was an average of
30 protests per day (Cele, 2007: 4). It is estimated that this figure has
significantly increased. Under the spasmodic interpretation, these protests
could be blamed on the biological needs of the people, with factors such as
lack of housing, lack of water and electricity being explained as possible
explanations for the increasing number of protests. An example is South
Africa’s Human Rights Commission Deputy Chairman Pregs Govender, who argued
that the Marikana shooting has cast a spotlight on working and living
conditions, and has brought urgency with regard to the betterment of these
conditions (Davids, 2012). One may argue that using a spasmodic theory in
analyzing the rise of protests robs us of the thorough analysis of why protests
occur, especially at the aforementioned rate. This means that questions like
why did the Lonmin miners decide to protest at this time? Why are other miners
at different mines who are equally being paid lower wages not resorting to
protest then? And what happens when people choose to protest outside of the
framework of the state? These questions are significant in understanding the
“moral economy of protests” in how the lack of service delivery or the protest
over an increase in wages are indicative of the people’s assertion to live in
dignity (Arnold, 2001: 85). This means that rather than viewing the increase in
protest through spasmodic lenses, which presupposes that water, electricity and
housing are central – one could adopt a
“moral economic” approach in understanding that the Right to basic service
delivery is attached to the right to dignity, and thus people are fighting to
dignify their existence. In this context, one could argue that South Africa
should use contemporary theory in analyzing the rise of protests not from a
spasmodic view, but rather from a position of “moral economic” in that people
must be perceived to be protesting for the Right to be treated with dignity. An
example was the Western Cape Provincial government’s decision to build
unenclosed toilets to the residents. In this context, contemporary theory
should be used to analyze the lack of dignity and disregard that the provincial
government was showing to the citizens. Their protest should not be viewed
through the spasmodic framework which would presuppose that the people were
protesting for the toilets to be enclosed, rather their protest was rooted on
the right to dignity and just treatment from the state.
Subalterns
who choose to disregard the parameters of the state: What happens?
One
should emphasis that in this essay, the term “subaltern” refers to the people,
group, organization or religious groups who operate outside of the of framework
or parameters of the state. The failure of the state to care of them has
resulted in their emergence. One may argue that within a society (particularly
in South Africa), there exist two groups: the civil society and the marginalized
or lower subalterns.
The aforementioned seeks to explain that within a society,
there coexists civil society and marginalized communities. It should be
emphasized at this point that civil society actors themselves could be
perceived as elites due to their financial resources and ability to influence
and shape public opinion. This was seeing when Secton27 took the Minister of
Basic Education Angie Motshekga, to court due to the Basic Education Department’s
argument that the Right to Education was not an immediate Right and was subject
to budgetary constraints and other factors (Wittles, 2012). This acts as an
example in how civil society has the necessary resources to influence
government policy and shape state decisions. Furthermore, one should be aware
that civil society itself is working within received ideas, in how its donors
and funders dictate the scope of research, what should be research and what
sorts of initiatives they choose to involve themselves in. In the
aforementioned graphical representation, the arrow between the government and
civil society attempts to show the reciprocal relationship that they both
share, in how civil society has the ability to shape state decisions, and the
government itself can respond to civil society and actually be influenced by
its decision. Thus civil society has a legitimate political space and operates
within the framework of the government and its judicial authority.
However there is another group within the
subalterns. This group consists of the economically dispossessed and
marginalized people who have no voice. One may even take this argument further
and say that these people face what may be referred to as “double oppression”,
which is the marginalization and disregard that they face from the state and
the lack of attention and welfare from the civil society. Partha Chatterjee has
argued about the impact of modernization and democracy on developing countries
such as South Africa and India (Chatterjee, 2006: 301). One may that due to
capitalist development and the advent of modernization in a largely developing
state, South Africa’s subalterns have largely “fallen behind” modernization,
and thus appear to have been trapped (this will be explained more in the
essay). These subalterns who have been ignored by the state, have either formed
alternative communities so as to provide their own social security, or have
resorted to responding to the state through what Michael Neocosmos has referred
as the “national liberation struggle” (Neocosmos, 2008). Those subalterns who
have resorted to forming alternative communities include the Khoisan societies
who currently reside in the Kalahari Desert (Sapa, 2012). They exist outside of
the authority of the state, and as they don’t obtain social security, social
grants, access to housing and basic water and electricity (Sapa, 2012). One may argue that Chatterjee’s notion that
the transition from a postcolonial state to modernization – in how the
subalterns are left behind – is significantly relevant with regard to the lives
of the Khoisan communities. One may take this understanding further and argue
that the post-1994 dawning of democracy offered nothing for the Khoisan as they
still face similar challenges that they encountered during apartheid. This
means that during the process of modernization, there are populations of people
who still remain “subjects” and not “citizens”. These “subjects” resort to
alternative sources of authority who position themselves as parallel societies
as they attempt to fill the socio-economic void left by the government.
One
may argue that there is another group within the subalterns who unlike the
Khoisan who resort to forming alternative or parallel societies so as to ensure
their social security, choose to radically challenge the state in the hope of
institutionalizing the “transformation of the lived experience of power”
(Neocosmos, 2008). This means that these subalterns are also marginalized and
disenfranchised, and have responded to that disempowerment through attempting
to change the “character” of the state in making it pro-poor, or sensitive to
the needs of the economically dispossessed. An example includes Abahlali
Basemjondolo, who, according to S’bu Zikode, are fighting a system that:
makes it impossible for equality. [The current system] makes
sure that it divides in order to retain the status quo. It has created its own
empire for its own people that matter to it, that are accountable to it. The
system itself makes other people to be less, to be not important, not to matter
(Zikode, 2009).
One may argue that organizations such as Abahlali baseMjondolo seek to challenge not only the policies of the state, but also
hope to change the state system itself. This means that they hope to adopt a
different state ideology that does not conform to liberal capitalist democracy,
but one rooted in the establishment of equality with dignity. Furthermore, one
may argue that this understanding of the state reflects Jacque Ranciere’s
notion of looking at equality as a point of departure in politics (Ranciere,
2006: 60). In the above quotation from Zikode, it is significant to note that
he is not only concerned about the economic effects that are caused by the
elites (Zikode, 2009). He is also concerned about the detrimental effects of
the empire in making “other people feel less” (Zikode, 2009). One may argue
that this is a Steve Biko approach in viewing political and economic oppression
through its effects on the self and thus, it is only through the reconstruction
of the self, that other oppressions will cease (Biko, 2004: 20). With regard to
Abahlali baseMjondolo, as they choose to operate outside of the framework of
the state, they are perceived as “problem people” largely because they refuse
to conform to the current status quo, and wish to pursue alternative measures
needed for socio-economic emancipation of the people (Gordon, 2006: 85). One
may argue that in this context, contemporary theory should be used as an
emancipatory theory in South Africa because of the need to commit to an
existential mode of thinking. This means that ideas such as people are free and
cannot be controlled, subjugated or subordinated are central in not only
challenging the status quo like Abahlali baseMjondolo are doing – but in also
proposing alternative solutions rooted in the need for emancipation and
equality. This means that there is a need to change the perception of
organizations who work outside of state parameters to not be perceived as
“problem people”, but to rather be given a democratic space to express
themselves. Furthermore, an emancipatory theory should be used in South Africa
as a tool of including the marginalized communities such as the Khoisan who
have resorted to forming parallel societies outside of the domain of the state.
These parallel societies should be included in the state and must not be
“silenced” through state ignorance and consistent marginalization.
Partisan and counter-partisan in South African politics
According to Grant Farred, after the Second World War, there
was a new nomos in how racism could no longer be justified (Farred, 2004: 601).
This means that because of the Jewish Holocaust, “racism” could no longer be
legitimized as a measure of systemic oppression. In context to South Africa,
this was seen in how the Apartheid government was collapsing as it was
perceived as functioning under an outdated ideology. In the contemporary
period, one may argue that the new nomos has emerged as a combination of the
division between the rich and the poor, inequality and class. It should be
emphasized that due to the post Cold War unipolar triumph of market capitalism,
these nomos are universal and as a result, are legitimate and justified.
Furthermore, contemporary South African politics are rooted in the partisan and
counter partisan relations. By partisan, this refers to the division and
political separations under the notion of “us” and “them”. One could argue that
these divisions are not only political, but are also connected to the resources
of the country, in how those who fall on the partisan side of the ruling party,
usually get financial government contracts. An example is the breakaway union,
the national Transport Allied Workers Union which was formed from the South
African Transport and Allied Workers Union (Sapa, 2012). Rather than tackling
the factors that caused the union to split, Congress of the South African Trade
Unions (COSATU) Secretary General Zwelinzima Vavi, took a theodician approach
in not blaming the state (or COSATU) but rather deemed the union’s existence as
the single “biggest onslaught waged by the bourgeoisie against the living
standards of the working class” (Sapa, 2012). This means that for Vavi, it’s
either the workers are with COSATU and its allies and work within the framework
of the union, or they are an “onslaught” on the rights of workers. Furthermore
the division between the “friend/ enemy” is governed by conformity to the
system, in that whoever chooses to work outside its framework is immediately
positioned as counter-partisan. An example was the Nedbank chairman Reuel
Khoza’s criticism that South Africa has “strange breed” of leaders who are
incapable to deal with “the complexity of [the] 21st century
governance and leadership” (Kamhunga, 2012). The ANC’s response positioned
Khoza as what could be referred to as a “problem person” who due to his
challenges at Nedbank, seeks to divert attention. One may argue that this
response positioned Khoza as counter-partisan due to his non conformity in
airing his views and dissenting from the pro-government discourses that usually
characterizes the business community. In this context, one may argue that
contemporary theory could be used to challenge the status quo, in refusing to
be categorized as either “partisan” or “counter-partisan”. These categories rob
us of the thorough analysis and debates about the state and its decisions. Due
to these categories, one cannot engage in political discussions and offer
authentic solutions because of the repercussions in how the use of labels such
as “counter revolutionary” and “bourgeoisie” are used as linguistic weapons
designed to silence the secondary or alternative views. Thus in this context, it is the role of political
theory in South Africa to deconstruct these categories and allow authentic
debates rooted in the understanding of contributing meaningfully to the
development of the state and the lives of its people.
Conclusion
Due to the historical injustices of the past, contemporary
theory should be used in South Africa as a measure of attempting to create
alternative solutions and constructive criticism needed for the development of
the state. Furthermore, contemporary should be used as a measure of analyzing
the use of protests as a means to dignify the live of people, rather than being
perceived as a threat that seeks to destabilize the functionality of the
country. In addition, the subalterns who operate outside of the framework of
the state must be made to be included, so as to also contribute to its
development. Contemporary theory could help in this regard in discussing socio
economic and historical repercussions of silencing their pasts through
consistent exclusion and marginalization.
Bibliography
Arnold, T. C., 2001, Rethinking Moral Economy, The American Political Science Review,
95 (1): 85-95.
Biko, S., 2004, I Write What I Like, Johannesburg:
Picador Africa.
Cele, S., 2007, The right to protest: A handbook for
protestors and police, Johannesburg: Freedom of Expression Institute.
Chatterjee, P., 2006, The Politics of the Governed, New Delhi:
Pauls Press.
Davids, N., 2012, Why
the people are angry. Available at:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2012/08/29/why-the-people-are-angry
Date of Access: 04 September 2012.
Fanon, F., 2001, The Wretched of the Earth, London:
Penguin Books.
Friedman, S., 2012, Not enough to look for scapegoats for Marikana. Available
at: http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2012/08/22/not-enough-to-look-for-scapegoats-for-marikana Date of Access: 05 August 2012.
Gordon, L., 2006, Not Only the Masters Tools, Boulder:
Paradigm Publishers.
Kamhunga, S., 2012, SA’s “strange breed” of leaders a threat to
democracy. Available
http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2012/04/02/sa-s-strange-breed-of-leaders-a-threat-to-democracy
Date of Access: 06 September 2012.
Mantashe, G., 2012, Mantashe:
Marikana breeds counter-revolution. Available at: http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/mantashe-marikana-breeds-counter-revolution-1.1369789#.UEWescGPV40
Date of Access: 05 August 2012.
Neocosmos, M., Civil
Society, citizenship and the politics of the (im)possible. Available at:
http://abahlali.org/files/Neocosmos%202007%20citizenship%20and%20politics.pdf Date of Access: 03 September
2012.
Ranciere, J., 2010, The Idea of Communism,
London: Vorso.
Sapa, Khoisan leader given state funeral despite last
wishes. Available at:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/07/01/khoisan-leader-given-state-funeral-despite-last-wishes
Date of Access: 03 September 2012.
Vavi, Z., 2012, Cosatu claims breakaway unions onslaught on working
class. Available at:
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-08-25-cosatu-claims-breakaway-unions-an-onslaught-on-working-class Date of Access: 06 September 2012.
Wittles, C., 2012, Section27 preps for textbook case. Available at:
http://eyewitnessnews.co.za/2012/09/03/Section-27-preps-for-textbook-case
Date of Access: 04 September 2012.
Zikode, S., 2009, To Resist All Degradations and Divisions, Available at:
http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interface-1-2-pp22-47-Zikode.pdf Date of Access: 04 September 2012.
