Development Talk

“So as a prelude whites must be made to realise that they are only human, not superior. Same with Blacks. They must be made to realise that they are also human, not inferior.” – Steve Biko 1946-1977

The 11th Steve Biko Memorial Lecture was delivered this year by American Alice Walker, best known for her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Colour Purple. The annual lecture is organised by the Steve Biko Foundation and is one of the activities aimed at building on the legacy of Biko, who espoused community development and the restoration of dignity and identity to an oppressed people.

In the sound clip presented above, recorded during apartheid, shortly before Biko’s death, he speaks about the principles of Black Consciousness which formed his political mindset. He said that under apartheid black people suffered a psychological oppression which made them feel inferior. Biko wanted black people to free their minds and elevate themselves. (more…)

Judith February of IDASA said action is needed from civil society.

Judith February of IDASA said action is needed from civil society.

“The Protection of Information Bill is inherently unconstitutional.”

This is what Dr Laurie Nathan, research fellow at UCT’s Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, said at a discussion about the proposed Protection of Information Act and the Media Appeals Tribunal held at the Book Lounge in Cape Town last night.

Nathan, who is also affiliated with the Crisis States Research Centre at the London School of Economics, said that the principle of an open society is something which is found throughout our Constitution. The proposed Protection of Information Act will however, create a society of secrets.

Limiting rights

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa says that anyone has the right to have access to any information held by the state, but the Protection of Information Bill aims to keep this information from citizens. According to Nathan, the Bill defines national interest and security so broadly that this definition can be used to keep any and all information secret.

The Constitution also states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, artistic freedom and academic freedom. If the Protection to Information Bill is passed it will  cancel this freedom.

Nathan said that the issue of a Media Appeals Tribunal is something separate to the Protection of Information Bill. The fact that it has been lumped together with the Bill in debates has created confusion, which furthers the cause of those advocating for the Bill, he said. According to Nathan, the questions raised about ethics and the media make sense, but the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal is definitely not the vehicle to address this. Neither is the Protection of Information Bill.

What can you do?

The proposed Protection of Information Act is inherently unconstitutional. Photo: Zampano via Flickr

The proposed Protection of Information Act is inherently unconstitutional. Photo: Zampano via Flickr

“When listening to Laurie Nathan I ask myself: ‘How can we stop this?’,” the writer Dr Sindiwe Magona said at the event. “If we don’t act now, it will become law. The freedom we fought for and gained in 1994 will shrink.”

Judith February, Head of IDASA’s Political Information and Monitoring Service, agreed that action from civil society is necessary to address this issue. IDASA is putting together a media statement entitled Let the truth be told: Stop the secrecy bill! which has been signed by more than 100 organisations. You can sign the bill by clicking here or by SMSing your name to 32759.

“People are making a mistake if they think this Bill will only affect journalists. In reality any information that an ordinary citizen applies for will be hidden. It will affect ordinary poor people more than anyone else.”

IDASA has been talking to grassroots organisations, who have before made use of the right to access to information from government. These organisations understand what the proposed Protection of Information Act will mean. They have also signed the media statement.

Furthermore, IDASA is mobilising community radio stations to reach the greatest number of people in South Africa.

February encouraged people to write letters to the newspaper and to flood Cecil Burgess’ inbox. (Burgess is the chair of the parliamentary committee that’s looking at the Protection of Information Bill.)

You can also attend another discussion on the proposed Protection of Information Bill tonight, which will be hosted by the Mail&Guardian at the Nelson Mandela Gateway (V&A Waterfront) in Cape Town.

dialogue with donors?

 

January 9, 2008

Many of the enquiries we receive at DEVELOPMENT WORKS are for assistance with fundraising. We are constantly reminded that the search for funding is an ongoing and pressing challenge for NGOs and CBOs operating in South Africa. No doubt this same challenge also affects nonprofits in other countries.

The recent International Fundraising Congress (IFC) examined a number of big issues and trends in the fundraising arena. One of the big ssues raised during the Big Issues Sessions was whether a need exists for a deeper discussion with donors? This interesting debate is well laid out and explored in a recent posting by the Resource Alliance. It is worth reading for those involved in sourcing and securing funding for nonprofits and charities as it considers the important role of Dialogue, as opposed to ‘just looking for feedback’.

(The other big issues addressed include Passion, Originality, Simplicity and Positivity. More on these in future posts.)

The IFC, the worlds leading training and education forum for fundraisers, is an initiative of the Resource Alliance and presents fundraisers with the opportunity to build on their skills and knowledge of fundraising.

The 28th IFC will be held 14-17 October 2008 in Noordwijkerhout, the Netherlands.

Filed under: development,dialogue,donors,fundraising,Uncategorized — @ 11:16 am

Conceptualising RACE

 

October 1, 2007

Justin du Toit, an Honours student at the University of Stellenbosch studying sociology and a Research Intern at DEVELOPMENT WORKS, recently attended a thought-provoking seminar on RACE and shares his experience ….

Race, the word, the pronunciation, the very expression it invites is a sensitive issue in South Africa and especially in Cape Town. In speaking at the recent Seminar on Race, hosted about the Centre for Conflict Resolution on 27 September 2007, the chair, Sheila Camerer, said that it is a brave man indeed who tackles this issue in our country. Furthermore, Sheila stated that Ryland Fisher succeeds in his stimulation on the issue of race within the South African context. The motto of the book, Race by Ryland Fisher is similar to that of the Cape Town Festival, of which he was Executive Director, which is, bringing people together.

Before entering the Seminar, I could have had too high an expectation of the seminar and discussion(s) around the issue of race, and especially race in the South African context. I do agree that race is a sensitive issue in the context of South Africa, however, what the concept begs, is critical thinking, analysis and in-depth sociological analysis. Hence, one should be extremely wary in the manner in which one approaches the concept. What should be taken into consideration, however, is that the book was written, as Ryland stated, from a journalistic perspective.

In introducing his book, Ryland said that writing the book Race was a difficult process because of the sensitive nature of the concept. The book is written from the viewpoint of a journalist, with the aim of making it accessible to as many people as possible and hence, looks at the issue of race in a popular manner. Race is comprised of interviews conducted by Ryland and subsequently divided into chapters. Among the interviewees were, Vincent Barnes, Rhoda Khadalie, Naledi Pandor, Melani Verwoed, etc In his introduction, Ryland touched on his confession and acceptance of I am a racist in the introductory chapter to the book. According to Ryland where there is race, there is racism and hence, we are all racists. Ryland stated that he wants to forget about race but is difficult, because he is constantly reminded of his race and hence, that of others. In what I found to be a profound and deep statement when Ryland said that I am obsessed with race and peoples’ race obsessed with me. In this statement, Ryland also highlights the confusion associated with being obsessed with race and the fact that black and white South Africans don’t think about race in the same way.

His solution to this state of confusion and/or obsession with the concept race is education. Ryland made the point that no-one is born a racist, we are made racists. However, Ryland failed to provide clarity as to the single possible solution to the problem of race and racism when he stated that one could be liberated from race and racism through socialising with different cultural groups. Unfortunately, these solutions are far too simplistic in dealing with and overcoming the issue of race and racism, especially within the South African context.

I do understand that the book was written from a journalistic perspective, and unfortunately, this is where the problem lies with regard to discussing, dealing with and overcoming the issue and concept of race and hence, racism. Hence, one cannot approach the issue of race from such a simplistic manner. The point I am trying to convey, is that the book lacks sufficient critical thinking, discussion, and sociological analysis on the issue of race. In discussing race one is confronted with social context, which is shaped by people’s social relations. The concept of race is far to complex, a labyrinth of meanings and relations, and such simplistic analysis and discussion on the issue, by Ryland, does not do justice to the concept, and in creating meaningful discussion, critical and sociological analysis of the concept.

Discussant, Zimitri provided some insightful limitations and posed meaningful questions, as points of discussion for the seminar. However, Ryland failed to adequately address these limitations and questions, respectively. In Zimitri’s analysis and interpretation of the book she states that Ryland tends to settle for less and settle for second best. What was lacking in the content of the book was a much more analytical voice on the part of Ryland. She highlighted the point that his depiction of Blackman Nguru, with regard to his derogatory and dehumanising statement of the Coloured people, was too lenient a behaviour. Zimitri was of the opinion that Nguru had to be dealt with in a fierce manner with regard to his statement. Furthermore, Zimitri said that what we don’t need is a new race language, but to name race, and hence, she felt that Ryland does not provide an adequate and clear definition of race and racism. She stated that race should open possibilities for change rather than close them, and that we should practice an approach of fierce compassion and fierce vigilance rather than an accusatory approach. Zimitri posed the question, How do we work for race and culture, and its implications? In response, she stated that we need to work with them in order to free them.

Zimitri said that the possible solution to the issue of race and racism is for this generation (present) to resist race and racialism in the framework of knowledge and not that of amnesia. According to Zimitri, we cannot afford to be resigned to live with any form racism. Zimitri stated that we, as South Africans, should not settle for anything less than the eradication of race and racism. The problems and inequalities created through race and racism are human-made and hence, can be un-made. Therefore, this comes back to my earlier critique in the manner in which Ryland approaches the concept of race and racism. Because it is human-made and hence, can be un-made, according to Zimitri, sociological analysis is pertinent in studying, researching and investigating social relations around the concept of race in attempts to understand and explain the way(s) in which this very concept is given breath to live through humans, and hence, provide possible solutions in dealing with and eradicating race in its entirety. In her gracefully poetic, spoken-word manner of speaking, Zimitri stated that it is extremely difficult to follow an anti-racial living when our lives are drenched in such racial meaning. With reference to the frequently asked question, according to Zimitri as to What can a sincere white person do? She says that, in their attempts to overcome race and their own racism, it is imperative for them to meet face-to-face with their colonial selves in the mirror.

I left the seminar with two questions which would take years to research, investigate and resolve. The two questions are as follows: Can race’ and racism ever be eradicated? How do we best conceptualise the concept of race’ in order to understand it in other words, in which framework should it be placed in order for it to be understood?”

Filed under: dialogue,identity,race,sociology — @ 2:27 pm

space to debate…

 

September 21, 2007

Justin du Toit, a research intern with DEVELOPMENT WORKS, attended the Fit to Govern seminar and shares his experience:

FIT TO GOVERN: THE NATIVE INTELLIGENCE OF THABO MBEKI

 

Chair: Adekeye Adebajo, Speaker: Ronald Suresh Roberts, Discussant: Sipho Seepe

The dialogue offered a space in which views could be debated and corrected and not merely criticised as the media seems to do. This is especially important with writing that is meant to be factual, the electotrate have the right to question what is written in press or book and correct the so called facts that are put forward. Authors in the media and in books should thus not be taken as authorities but electorates must not take for granted what these writers say. Electorates must be wary of propaganda in the information space. Like all dialogues, this one also showed that there is still room for space to debate (and not just scoring points or settling scores). All can engage intellectually without giving the impression that some are more sophisticated than others, there is no voice banning

The issue which stuck out in the seminar and which led to quite a lengthy disussion, was President Mbeki’s statement which questioned the relationship between the HIV-virus and the AIDS disease. Ronald in his response to the discussion stated that, to debate anything is to create confusion. Hence, he referred to the electorate as a range of confusable subjects. So the question begs, Should we, as South African citizens not debate issues and remain slaves to the hegemonic view? However, what was highlighted as specualtive in the seminar on the whole HIV/AIDS debate is whether Mbeki explicitly denied that HIV causes AIDS. Mr. Seepe posed the question as to Why could the President not be clear on the issue (AIDS) as he was on other issues? He goes on to state that Mbeki is not definitive in his answer with regard to the HIV/AIDS debate. Mbeki does not affirm nor deny, and there is no-one, including the ministers who have a definite yes or no answer.

In addition, Ronald stated that, at the moment, by not refusing or accepting the damage has been done. In addition he stated that, the HIV/AIDS issue will be Mbeki’s Achilles heal. It is extremely important for a figure like Mbeki to be clear on issues, such as, the HIV/AIDS debate because people will on the basis of what he says, as he is seen as an authority figure within South Africa. Hence, people who are less educated will act on the basis of what he says.

Filed under: dialogue,HIV/AIDS — @ 6:22 am
« Newer PostsOlder Posts »