The DA, fighting apartheid, and reinventing history

-->

I have to admit to some astonishment at the ‘Know Your DA’ campaign, which suggests that the Democratic Alliance (DA) was somehow involved in the struggle against apartheid.

Maybe it is worth repeating that apartheid was declared by the United Nations to be a crime against humanity.  It was not just a mildly aberrant policy that could be changed as a result of white parliamentary opposition.

As such apartheid needed to be fought against.  And not just ‘fought’ by way of a few newspaper articles and some opposing voices raised in the illegitimate parliament of the time, but fought by way of an armed struggle and international isolation and sanctions.

It should not be necessary to repeat what this struggle involved and the huge sacrifices made by people across South Africa.  Many thousands of people were forced into exile and many were away from their homes and families for decades, while some never came home.  Hundreds of others were imprisoned, again many for decades, tortured and killed in the apartheid goal.  Many were detained without trial and held in solitary confinement for long periods.

The ultimate price was paid by people of all races and backgrounds – Bram Fischer, Jeannette Schoon and her daughter Katryn, Ruth First, Solomon Mahlangu, Steve Biko, Neil Aggett, Andrew Zondo, Chris Hani, Phila Ndwandwe, David Webster, Hector Peterson, and many others, including of course people protesting against the pass laws at Sharpeville in 1960, and school children shot by police in 1976.

Many thousands more were forcibly removed from their homes and dumped in so-called homelands – something I covered in an earlier blogpost dealing with De Klerk’s amnesia.

Many organisations struggling against apartheid were banned, as were many individuals.  Generally, people who did not fit under the apartheid classification of ‘white’ were required to carry passes and suffer countless other indignities and bureaucratic abuses simply on the basis of their skin colour.

Now the DA of course was not in existence during the apartheid years.  But it’s ‘predecessor’ organisations were.  Especially the Progressive Federal Party (PFP), with leaders such as Helen Suzman and Colin Elgin.  The PFP opposed apartheid policies in the white’s only parliament of the day, as did the earlier Liberal Party – although the Liberal Party took a decision to disband after the government passed a law disallowing parties from having a multiracial membership and it was not a predecessor of the PFP.  (although I am not sure if the SA Liberal Party actually ever had any MPs - someone may enlighten me...)

Of course, even earlier, the South African Labour Party under the leadership of Alex Hepple, who was an MP in the late 40s and 50s, also spoke out in Parliament against apartheid but failing to win significant white support closed down in the 1950s (and was also not in any sense a predecessor of the PFP).

The fact is that, while there were brave voices who used the white parliament to oppose apartheid, including Helen Suzman, these white voices were most solitary, and attempts to organise across colour lines and to make common cause with organisations like the ANC were mostly doomed. 

It was the fate of many white people and organisations that opposed apartheid to be harassed, imprisoned, banned or driven into exile.  On the liberal side - Peter Brown, of the Liberal Party, was detained for 98 days after the Sharpeville massacre and in 1964 was banned for 5 years under the Suppression of Communism Act.

Peaceful opposition to apartheid did not work and did not bring about the changes desired by the majority of people.  It was this realisation by the PAC and ANC in the late 50s and early 60s that led to the formation of the PAC’s military wing Poqo in 1960, the ANC’s military wing Umkhonto weSizwe in 1961, and Mandela going to Algeria for military training.

Mandela’s words from his speech in the dock:

"At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961 … we said:

'The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.'”

The Progressive Federal Party was never banned and its members were not imprisoned or driven into exile.  Nor did the PFP align itself with the struggle as defined by Mandela.  While some of its members may have spoken out against aspects of apartheid, it was not involved in the broad sweep of extra-parliamentary struggle against apartheid, nor in the worldwide opposition to the South African regime, which was led by the ANC in exile and numerous banned underground organisations, trade unions and civic organisations inside South Africa.

This is not to minimise the significance of Helen Zille writing with Allistair Sparks about the death in detention of Steve Biko, or her membership of the Black Sash, or the individual efforts of a few other current DA members.

And it is important, now, that the DA plays its role as a leading opposition political party in a free and democratic South Africa.  As the realignment of opposition political formations continues, it may well be that the DA is able to make common cause with others, move beyond its white leadership and support base, and create new formations that will one day allow it to contest realistically for political leadership in this country on the basis of winning mass support.  It is worth recalling the worlds of Aime Cesaire:

“For it is not true that the work of man is finished,
That we have nothing more to do in the world,
That we are just parasites in this world,
That it is enough for us to walk in step with the world,
For the work of man is only just beginning and it remains to conquer all,
The violence entrenched in the recess of his passion,
And no race holds a monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of strength, and,
There is a place for all at the Rendezvous of Victory.”

And so let us not pretend when it comes to South African history.  The struggle involved killings, torture, detentions, bannings, exile, military training in camps in the frontline states, parcel bombs, cross-border raids by the SADF, proxy wars fought in Mozambique and Angola, international sanctions and boycotts, and much more.  It was an armed struggle that required solidarity.  The DA’s predecessors in parliament were at best minor irritants to the apartheid government and were not involved.  So be it.  And now let us move forward, recognising that there is a place for all.

Penny Plowman's Qualitative Diary Method

My good friend Penny Plowman has undertaken qualitative research on the use of a diary methodology as one aspect of an integrated approach to organisational analysis and change. One of the beautiful things about this method is that it enables organisational participants to articulate truths about their organisation - truths that often otherwise remain hidden!

 

Interesting themes that have arisen for Penny in the course of her research include how diarists address issues of 'silencing' that happens in organisations, as well as how to address issues of inclusion and exclusion from centres of power (the 'boys' club'), and issues of emotion and feelings at work. An important question that arises with this type of organisational research is whether an organisation is ready to address issues that arise from the research. One of the exciting opportunities that arises from this type of research is the participative nature of the research - in that the diarists become 'co-researchers' into the life and culture of the organisation. You can listen to Penny's full University of Johannesburg presentation here.

No people - just screens, terminals and handsets…

On arriving recently at the new Terminal 5 at London’s Heathrow Airport I was struck by the car hire place - no people, just screens, terminals and handsets.

And in the parking terminal, machines that will tell you where you car is parked, just swipe your picking ticket or enter your car registration.

EU passport holders have since 2006 been issued with biometric passports with microchips in them, enabling them to pass seamlessly through automatic gates at border controls.

These new developments all reduce the need to employ people who do routine and repetitive jobs involving scanning, searching, paying and recording.

Supermarkets too are able to dispense with cashiers as customers scan items from their trolleys themselves into one device and pay (cash, credit or debit cards) into another:

And scanning devices are already being introduced in South African supermarkets – here is a ‘price-checking’ scanner at Checkers in Emmarentia:

Increasingly banks will exchange ‘brick and mortar’ branch networks for apps and cellphone-enabled technology as the safest and most secure customer offering, and banks of the future will look very different.

In case you think these developments are a long-way off for South Africa, here is the FNB branch in Hyde Park Shopping Centre:

I imagine that if banks and supermarkets in Europe are replacing recurrent employment costs with expenditure on technology then it is only going to be a short time before it happens here as well.  My local Checkers supermarket in Emmarentia employs probably well over 100 people, and we have no social contract in this country that says we need to preserve these jobs because of the social benefits of the incomes of the employees to them and their families, and of course our wider society.

These changes will not just impact on service sectors of the economy.  In mining, too, there are new developments that will enable remote-controlled mining, in which the rock face can be drilled by machines controlled from the surface:

  

What is driving these changes?

A nanometer is very small – a billionth of a meter long.  The world’s smallest microchip, unveiled in 2010, is just about nine nanometers in length.  Scientists are experimenting with ‘stacking’ microchips so as to be able to make faster and better cellphones (and military technology).  The problem is that they get very hot, so now they exploring how to use tiny amounts of fluid to keep them cool.

Microchips are unlikely to get much smaller, so now the innovation space is more concerned with how to expand their use.  More and more devices will become available with a multitude of uses that will change our lives.  And it is happening already.

We face the loss of perhaps hundreds of thousands of relatively low-paid, repetitive and relatively unskilled jobs as a result of new technologies in a short number of years – unless we can think very creatively and create a new social dispensation that has buy-in and active support from government, business and trade unions to address this question.  Currently there is little indication that this is understood by government and the trade union movement.

Government plans to create new jobs will be undermined by the impact of this technological transformation.  New jobs will have to be created in sectors that require skilled knowledge workers, in sectors such as tourism, beneficiation, information technology and so on.  Opportunities exist, arising from developments such as the Square Kilometer Array, chemical industry beneficiation etc, but these opportunities will critically require skilled people.  The loss of large numbers of relatively unskilled and low paid jobs cannot be countered easily and speedily by new job creation without a new and significant skills development plan coupled with an imaginative economic development strategy that has buy-in from all social partners.  The current National Development Plan may not be enough, especially in the context of our current conflictive political discourse.