The Legacy of Steve Biko

The following is a perspective on the past Presidential elections in South Africa (Azania)


Who would Steve Biko have voted for in the upcoming elections?
Andile Mngxitama, 23-Mar-2009 21:31

Stephen Biko would not be voting. I will try illustrate the claim through presenting a case for what Biko stood for when he died and then try run a critical look at existing political terrain to assess how close or far this political reality is to the vision of liberation Biko was committed to, in this way we can draw some conclusions about how Biko if at all would cast his ballot. Let it be said at the onset that the question “who would Biko have voted for?” if we was alive today is not only misleading but borders on the blasphemous and absurd. It’s actually a question which can only produce much heat and little clarity. It allows for abuse on the basis of groundless speculation. So I appreciate the “controversial” nature of the topic. Truth is no one really knows for sure where Biko would have been politically had he lived. We can’t even draw comfort from the positions currently held by his surviving closest friends. Let’s take two the prominent ones, Dr Ramphele Mamphele and Dr Barney Pityana. Ramphele has gone to work for the world bank and seats on the board of the rapacious Anglo American corporation . Pityana decided to join the ANC in exile, we know Biko didn’t consider the ANC’s non-racialism, or intergrationist polticis as adequate for black liberation, nor would Biko have aligned himself with the World Bank and its attacks on Africa, as Dr Ramphele has done. Furthermore, the integrationist transformation of the society and the university supported by the two is contrary to the core of Biko’s philosophy. So we learn nothing useful from observing Biko’s friends including those who claim his friendship beyond the grave. In a sense to know where Biko would stand can only be deduced from reading the entire post 1994 political settlement against Biko’s vision for liberation. I do make the claim that its easy to actually know where Biko stood on the matter of liberation for black people by the time of his death, and this is the only measure we have to judge how he would have positioned himself in the present, anything else is idle speculation really. Biko’s Conception of Liberation : Biko’s idea of liberation is fundamentally anti-racist and anti-capitalist, as opposed to being anti-racialist, non-racialist and intergrationist- these conceptions of change naturally leads to de-racialisation of capitalism and thereby the legitimation of the white supremacist political, economic and social existence created over the last 350 years in SA. Biko’s framing of the fundamental contradiction in SA as one of white racism, emanates from his conception of capitalism as it emerged in SA as an inherently racist project. In his words then; “...the color question in South African politics was originally introduced for economic reasons. The leaders of the white community had to create some kind of barrier between black and whites so that the whites could enjoy privileges at the expense of blacks and still feel free to give moral justification for the obvious exploitation that pricked even hardest of white consciences” (96-97). For Biko this initial subjugation of black for economic reason has over time created the “white power structure”. This is to mean white racism whilst based on historical dispossession and oppression of blacks, has come to assume a position of relative autonomy, where whiteness normalizes itself as a power dynamic based on the superiority complex which is linked skin color on the one and the inferiority of blacks on the others. The actual existing circumstances of blacks (historically, systematically created) actually reinforce the reality of this white superiority and black denigration. These propositions are not merely mental states, they are material, and determine life chances and privileges. To be white is to be human as to be black is to be subhuman. Biko sharply makes the point that; “The racism we meet doesn’t only exist on an individual basis; it is institutionalized to make it look like the South African way of life” (81s). it must be said that in fact the normalization of racism is ingrained in the psyches of both whites (the beneficiaries) and blacks (the victims). It was on the recognition of this reality that Biko and his comrades argued for the “conscientisation” of the blacks, because the black people at the time “often looked like they have given up the struggle”. Key to the conscietisation process was always the totality of black awareness and pride for the purpose of struggle. Many have argued (Raymond Suttner, Kgositsiele – in formally) that BC had no programme for liberation, it “merely was a process for mental liberation”. This is of course a basic failure to grasp a philosophy based approach to struggle, which is about raising awareness and massification of a philosophy of resistance, so that those who are struggling are able to “provide answers for themselves”. In all these articulation of conscientisation “action” or struggle are key, hence for Biko, “Liberation is of paramount importance in the concept of Black Consciousness, for we cannot be conscious of ourselves and yet remain in bondage” . This simply put, is liberation at all levels, from material, spiritual, cultural, political wants. Its not some meditative process outside real existence. White Liberals : Biko’s antipathy towards white liberals, that “bunch do gooders” is based on his acute understanding of the totality of the white power structure and the relative autonomous existence of racism from its original sources. No single white person, hobos included can escape the benefit of racism. Hence is his famous rebuke to abelungu abasidandayo, “not only have they kicked the black but they have also told him how to react to the kick”. This theme in my view has been brilliantly developed by Kil Jah Kim in her “White anti racism is an oxymoron”. Kim reminds us that W.E.B DuBois, in his monograph Black Reconstruction brilliantly called it the “the psychological wage of whiteness.” That is, whites who are marginalized could find comfort, even if psychological, in the fact that they were not non-white. They could revel in the fact that they could be taken as white in opposition to non-white groups. Were do you suppose a white hobo got that arrogant swagger from? His got what you don’t have- a white skin! Frank Wilderson the 3rd shows the difficulty of trying to press for redress whilst being black in this anti-black world- its an impossibility actually, hence as he says there is a black absence in the ANC’s grammer of suffering. This is primarily as a result of “structurally adjusting” the political claims of black people to make them intelligible to the world (a white world). Blacks demand for justice unmediated by such adjustment would create a crisis of meaning, being and could be an invitation to death! The two propositions have major implications for post 1994 new resistance . This resistance is raceless and suffers from the same malice of white leadership in many respects if not white lexicon and claims for redress. It’s a movement for inclusion, for a slice of the cake within the existing white supremacist logic of existence. Its not yet a resistance for the end of the world. The demands of this movement don’t go beyond desires created by colonialism and apartheid. These I argue are animal level demands. For Biko the realization of true liberation within his conception of anti-racism and anti-capitalism is contextual, its based on having studied the actual nature of the South African society. Therefore, three inter related concepts are key to confronting the system, firstly conscietisation / awareness / philosophy, secondly action by oneself thereby rejection of non-racialist coalitions and finally a commitment to socialism is central. Biko the black Socialist : Through out I write what I Like we get snippets of Biko’s attitude to capitalism and his attitude towards a brand of socialism. It remains a mystery why the Eurocentric neo-Marxist and other such “left” thinkers continue to cast bc as somehow agreeable to capitalism. If we take seriously Biko’s conception of Apartheid SA as a country inflicted by white racism which is founded on the development of its brand of capitalism, it hard to see how Biko could have been pro capitalism. Let Biko speaks for himself; “...the poor shall always be black people. Its not surprising, therefore, that the blacks should wish to rid themselves of a system that locks up the wealth of the country in the hands of a few. No doubt Rick Turner was thinking about this when he declared that “any black government is likely to be socialist”... (68). When Biko was asked in the context of the NP’s paranoia and lies that the 1976 uprising was a Communist plot, he was asked “are you are a Communist?”, his response was “ We are by no means Communists. Neither do I believe for a moment that the unrest was is due to communist agitation” (167). This denial denial maybe one reason all sorts of nonsense is read into Biko’s clear anti-capitalist stance by those who equate being a communist with being anti- capitalist, what an impoverished conception of anti-capitalist though, movements and initiatives. Biko’s rejection of the label Communist, is based on self conscious political identification. We know that he found the Moscow sort of Communism repugnant. Equally, affirmative response to the question of whether he is a socialist indicates his firm position against capitalism Barney Pityana echoing, the obviously erroneous view that Biko was not a socialist, or rather was an underdeveloped socialist, posits Biko’s vision as at best nationalist with a commitment to justice, Pityana says Biko “… had no language of socialism and as such never critiqued to any substantive extent the socialist ideology, save that he haboured intellectual suspicions about socialist ideologies and practice” (8). It is my contention that even in his earlier writing Biko shows a favorable attitude towards socialism as he rejects Stalinism, social imperialism and white arrogance and liberalism. Its possible its Pityana who is misreading Biko’s position. Anyway ,when Biko was asked, as follow up to the whether he is a communist question; “You speak of an egalitarian society. Do you mean a socialist one?” Biko answered, “yes, I think there is no running away from the fact that now in South Africa there is such an ill distribution of wealth that any form of political freedom which doesn’t touch on the proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless. if we have a mere change of face of those in governing positions what is likely to happen is that black people will continue to be poor, and you will see a few blacks filtering through into the so called bourgeoisie. Our society will be run almost as of yesterday.”(169) emphasis mine). In the 1972 interview Biko is elaborates his criticism of Moscow’s social imperialism, about the South African Communist Parties servile position to Moscow. Biko furthermore, demonstrate a deep appreciation of the competing Marxian tendencies including the South African Trotskyite formations. “...a lot of young people see Moscow as revisionist in a sense, even in the communist context. You see what I mean? ...[T]heir policies are revisionist. They tend to demonstrate a hell of a lot of the same things that one finds among imperialists at this moment. So in a sense they are not the kind of socialist direction that people would like to follow. And besides that, the history of the CP in this country is studded with control measures from Moscow. Control measures that in many instances were against the interests of the people. And the guys who were selling the CP here in the country were very clear about their priorities; their priorities were tied up with Moscow and international communism, rather than with people in the struggle here”. I want to argue that throughout this conversation, Biko is developing a brand of socialism which I would like to call black socialism for a lack of a better word. Its contextual and focused on the black experience as a whole. It’s the kind of socialism which is anti-racist in nature, it takes into account that whiteness is pervasive and benefits whites irrespective of their political standing. We also see Biko’s take on “class”, which is often taken to mean Biko is not aware of class contradictions, and hence his bc is amenable to go to bed with capitalism. But this is not true, for Biko was acutely aware how the liberals, used class to hid white privilege and unearned leadership of black struggles and how in this way black demands for the end of the world get structurally adjusted to reproduce life. Frank B. Wilderson III; argues that the white left in South Africa refused to “organize in a politically masochistic manner, ” as suggested by BC. They refused to go “against the concreteness of their own communities, their own families, and themselves, rather than against the abstraction of ‘the system’—the target and nomenclature preferred by the UDF.”Instead of a “political masochism,” which would have brought the white left to the brink of the “abyss of their own subjectivity,” they shifted to Marxism and black labor.(you plagiarizing the intro to Biko Lives!)... Biko makes the point that the white left was involved in narscistic self serving navel gazing sort of intellectual masturbation; “They analyze this, analyze that; ..., They don't quite know to what extent they have to give up a part of themselves in order to be a true Marxist.” (‘72 interview). In the specific South African situation, Biko refused to accept white workers as part of a possible anti capitalist move, because in his view whilst they may be exploited in the Marxist sense (sell labour power), they do stand in a privileged position in relation to black people and imbued with sense of superiority as a result of whiteness. This intervention again shows great innovation on the part of Biko, he understands the specificity or lived experience of capitalism as a racist construct which is real and not some abstract category. Real people (black or white) live their politics in real life. Therefore Biko’s rejection of “Class Theory” is contextual and part of his assault on white liberal hypocrisy. When Biko was asked about the antipathy of the white left to ideas of black consciousness, which sought to go beyond just class, he responded thus; “...A number of whites in this country adopt the class analysis, primarily because they want to detach us from anything relating to race. In case it has a rebound effect on them because they are white. This is the problem. So a lot of them adopt the class analysis as a defense mechanism and are persuaded to it because they find it more comfortable. And of course a number of them are terrible about it. They.... again and again on this whole problem of black-white relationship in a court or a yard which is basically ours. They are terribly puritanical, dogmatic, and very, very arrogant.” In the 1972 Interview Biko in summarises his mode of socialism; “There are some leftist whites who have attachment to say the same rough principles of post-revolutionary society, but a lot of them are still terribly cynical about, for instance, the importance of value systems which we enunciate so often, from the black consciousness angle. That it is not only capitalism that is involved; it is also the whole gamut of white value systems which has been adopted as standard by South Africa, both whites and blacks so far. And that will need attention, even in a post-revolutionary society. Values relating to all the fields—education, religion, culture and so on. So your problems are not solved completely when you alter the economic pattern, to a socialist pattern. You still don't become what you ought to be. There's still a lot of dust to be swept off, you know, from the kind of slate we got from white society.” This brand of socialism speaks again to the totality of the black experience as an oppressed, exploited, denigrated, and “fungible” category, which traditional Marxism cant account for. As Wilderson says elsewhere, blacks stand in front of Marxism as a scandal, the Marxian lexicon is incapable of accounting for the black, because the Marxist discourse pivots on oppression and exploitation, it cannot account for fungibility, the fact that the black not only exploited as a supplier of labour power or dispossessed of land etc, but the black body is itself sold and bought and the initial global accumulation of capital is predicated on this relation between capital and the black (get Marx quote on slave origins of capitalism). And I want to argue is that in Biko’s thinking we begin to see some elements of what it would take to account for the black scandal, central to this account is how race has a “totalizing” impact on the whole existence of those so marked out for its assault. In this emphasis on thought, action and culture Biko is drawing from the existing post colonial thinkers such as Fanon and Cabral. I would argue that Biko’s sense of socialism is closer to the two than to the more softer Nyerere’s Ujamaa. We had said a little about Biko’s “black communalism” and his take on culture. I want to simply indicate that consistent with the black socialist project which seeks to place the black in the centre as it vanquishes capitalism and white racism at the same time, is the centrality of culture as a weapon on resistance, an important element of conscietisation and recreation of the self. Biko’s conception of culture is not the romantic backward looking sort of fantastic dreaming of Sengor, its about rescuing the positive from the past, but more importantly about the now. Cabral is one with Biko when he claims that; “Culture has to take its place at the heart of the struggle for liberation. Its not enough to talk about raising consciousness, what is important is the type of future we envisage the kind of social relations we plan to set up and how we prepare for the future…” Fanon makes bold that “it is this that counts, everything else is mystification. It is around the people’s struggles that culture take on substance, not around songs, poems or folklore”. (ADD BIKO). And this brings us sharply to David Theo Golbergs formulation of the problematic of race, capital and to day neo-liberalism. Anti Racism vs Anti Racialism : At the beginning we argued that Biko’s vision of liberation was fundamentally anti-racist as opposed to anti-racialist. We also alluded to the fact that anti-racialism or non- racialism inevitably leads to accommodation with white supremacy, whilst anti-racism seeks to end the world as we know it. We find Golbergs formulation and articulation of these categories and what political and strategic implications they hold useful for our discussion. The 1994 watershed, inaugurated the realization in a formal sense of anti-racialism in South Africa. A moment best described as the birth of “born again racism” to borrow from Golberg. This is achieved at the point of abandoning the promises of liberation as a matter of structural transformation into a matter inclusion. Accordingly this is realized through legal formalism and dare I add the fetish of constitutionalism, which promises equality in the abstract as it provides the historically privileges more avenues to protect their ill gained privileges in the name of rule of law. In the South African context this meant the sedimentation of reconciliation without justice into the DNA of our law and constitution. From this perspective blacks can claim reparation, can ask for justice for past transgression, blacks cant even simply speak the specificity of their black suffering. Black grammer of being, which is in essence a grammer of suffering is actually not only socially frowned upon, its outlawed (FBJ saga). Golberg argues that “born again racism is racism without race, racism gone private, racism without categories of naming it as such” (273). It is indeed “raceless racism” which chimes well with the colourlessness demand of non-racialism based on the proclaimed equality before the law. Anti-racialism or in our case non-racialism erases the category of race but not racism. It disables those marked out for racism by the color of their skin to claim redress or the name the crime (pssst- racism is not a crime in South Africa- do footnote). Golberg draws a sharp conclusion; “antiracialism it turns out for most part is whiteness by another name by other means, with the recruitement of people of color to act as public spokespersons for the cause… antiracialism is about decatogorisation a gesture necessarily by the racially dominant towards those they racially oppress”: (272). The tragic consequences of antiracialism in South Africa are felt everyday in the denial of recognizing black exclusion, suffering and death. We cant even say the people dying with wanton neglect in Barangwath Hospital are black. Or that the more than 100 children who died without a scandal in Eastern Cape and Mount Frere hospitals are black. Or that the life expectancy between black and white is so wide you would think they live in different continents. That the SA state continue a differential treatment of persons based on skin colour. That the groans of black under the weight of racism both individualized and most importantly instututionalised has not resonance in the dominant discourse of democracry, freedom, nation building, economic fundamentals etc. Antiracialism found fertile ground in the SA left politics which as we have shown have always refused to accept race as legitimate category of analysis, existence and resistance. In the post 1994 moment we have seen the development of at least three tragic consequences (for the black excluded) as a result of this commitment to antiracialism. Firstly the retreat of radical scholarship from theorizing the state, if the apartheid state was a racist, neo-Nazi, settler colonial state in the service of racial-capitalism, what is the post 1994 state form? Are there fundamental ruptures? My own take is that the post 1994 state remains racist in character and serves white racism in the context of promoting accumulation and reproduction of capitalism. Note I don’t use the favorable “post apartheid”. Second consequence has been that black leadership has taken over the levers of white supremacist institutions. This mirrors the sort of comedy we see in the functioning and symbolism of our parliamentary processes and courts. The annual opening of parliament is significant in its dramatization of the neo-apartheid nature of our body politic, the red carpet against the colonial iconography and statues. The whole scene is dominated by colorful African dress, basically dressing up the colonial and apartheid power structures in African colors. The essence remains white racist. The same ethic plays itself out more visibly in the university environment. You have black heads of white and often racist universities. The faculty is doted with blacks, but the curriculum, the culture and ethos remain white. Claims of racism from students and black faculty are mediated by blacks on top thereby enacting a situation of black on black violence in preserving the whiteness of these institutions. Basically post 1994 inaugurates a neo-colony. The third and sad consequence of the triumph of antiracialism is the “recruitment of people of color to act as public spokespersons”. There is curious development in this area, because some “commited” black/African public intellectuals have in essence been ironic spokespersons of antiracialism in the name of either defending democracy, promoting “cosmopolitanism”, nation building a defenders of a new sense of progressive identity. Whilst these scholars and commentators hold different positions on many questions but where “race” is concerned they have mobilized more the antiracialist end of the conundrum. Neville Alexander is perhaps one of the most radical black left thinkers we have to day but his take on affirmative action shows his race denialism. Jonathan Jansen on the other hand shows signs of what one can call the “Stockholm syndrome”, his love for his Afrikaner students leads him to plead a case for the maintenance of the status qou since transformation is too traumatic for these beneficiaries of centuries of black oppression. What unifies these antiracialists is the refusal to confront history, and to accept recognize how accumulated privileges have shaped the now, that the intergenerational wealth accumulated by whites awaits accounting for and no amount of throwing tantrums by the “white post 1994 children”, is going to absolve them from the general accounting whites collectively must still make. In most black languages we say Molato ha o bole/ icala aliboli. Antiracism lost out to antiracialism through the seductive Mandela/Tutu miracle of God realized through the “rainbow” nation ruse. Golberg again is on point; “Antiracism re quires historical memory, recalling the conditions of racial degradation and relating contemporary to historical and local to global conditions. If antiracist commitment requires remembering and recalling, antiracialism suggests forgetting, getting over, moving on, wiping away the term of reference, at best (or at worst) a commercial memorializing rather than a recounting and redress…”. In a sense the antiracialists reduce what has happen here in the past 350 years into as matter of misunderstanding which can be resolved by rational dialogue. Its brings about moral equivalency, and hence individual acts of racism are reduced to aberration because once history is removed from the conversation, there is no possibility of discoursing on structure. My take is that Biko’s conception of BC is fundamentally antiracist and stand inimically to antiracialism and the terms of the post 1994 constitutional dispensation. To reiterate Biko’s conception of black liberation is predicated on the obliteration of white racism, which is a product of capitalist accumulation which has occurred since the white and black violent encounter in 1652, which reproduces the same racism (as individual racism and institutionalized racism) 1994 changes notwithstanding. In s sense there is no possibility of obliterating white racism, without fundamentally changing how things are around here. Contesting Biko : In our book, BIKO LIVES! Contesting the Legacies of Steve Biko (2008), We identify at least three ways in which Biko is contested to day; The first is contestants is the Black Business class, secondly the state-linked political and bureaucratic classes (bureaucratic Bourgeoisie) and finally the excluded majority for whom 1994 miracle remains a rumor. I want to add a fourth category, which is the existing Black Consciousness formations (the Azanian People’s Organisation, Socialist Party of Azania and the Black Consciousness Party) Existing BC Parties and Biko : I have reason to believe that Biko would not be voting for any of these parties. Primarily these parties have been engaged in monumentalisation of the black resistance as an attempt to stamp in their role in the liberation struggle memory which has been usurped by the ANC with great electoral benefit to itself. Its understandable that the BCM and the PAC to some extend should feel shafted by this exclusion, truth is many of the BCM cadres suffered in the trenches of struggle. The contestation with the ANC for a piece of history takes the shape of protest action for naming of streets and highways in the name of “towers” of BC like Steve Biko, Tsietsi Mashinini, Mthuli ka Shezi, Abram Tiro and many others who died in the line of revolutionary duty. Having accepted that history of struggle has happened, these movements have little interest in making new history. 1994 marked the end of history, hence the quest to freeze struggle heroes (they are mostly men) in statues and street names which continue the one-way movement of wealth created by the hard labour of black people to the formerly whites only suburbs and the capitals of the global north. The BCM has by and large been reduced fighting to be remembered as part of history, whilst forgetting to act in the now! This clamoring for a piece of struggle history is highly suggestive I would argue. For starters is indicates the acceptance of the main points of the 1994 settlement. It’s a cry for inclusion, acknowledgement, recognition and reward. But this also is a political stance and an ideological commitment. The dangers inherent in this desire for recognition was best articulated by Strini Moodley in his last interview; “The ANC has rewritten the whole struggle of this country the way they want it to happen. And the point about it is you go anywhere in the world and you’ll see it like that. From my point of view that’s good BC has been written out of the struggle. Because if it was written in then we’re part of the problem. Now we’re still part of the solution.” Moodley see salvation outside of the going on mainstream political game, those in existing BCM formations see their salvation inside, they want to be come part of the problem. One can take Moodleys revolutionary optimism if you don’t accept the terms of the 1994 settlement, and also if you a sense of the possibility of mass insurrection to destroy the current order. In the same interview Moodley predicts an Armageddon; “What is going to happen, and I will tell you this. There is going to be an implosion in this country which is going to give birth to a new revolution. There is. There is. I’m telling you, there is. I’m telling you there is. All you have to do is identify the signals that are there. The signals to you may be unimportant, but check them out. Check them out. I promise you, there’s going to be an implosion in this country. And when that implosion occurs, you’re either going to get swept away by the tide of revolution, or you are going to be with it. It’s going to be the nastiest of the lot.” I think when we look at how swiftly the waves of the Negrophobic violence swept through country last year; we get a sense of what Moodley is talking about. I’m afraid the existing BCM is not reading the signs, what a bad move. In a sense I think Biko will recognize very little BC in the existing BCM formations actually. Azapo a health hazard to blacks? : Let take one of the main BCM formations Azapo and subject it to some close scrutiny. I have come to the sad conclusion that Azapo is actually neither Black Consciuoness, nor socialist. I think Azapo is in fact a danger to the wellbeing of blacks today. In essence, Azapo is a conservative, moralist, reactionary black political party. It stands for everything that Biko rejected. I think it would help to show just how much Azapo has bleached itself of all melanin by comparing its Election Manifesto to that of the DA. The Azapo manifesto is derived from its 12 Point Programme with their slogan “for the sake of our country”. Both Azapo and the DA play on the exaggerated theme of “democracy under threat”. Whilst for the DA such a move makes a lot of sense since it’s a party of white interest I struggle to understand the new found love for liberal democracy by Azapo. Take the preamble to the 12 point programme: “Our country is facing many difficulties. They range from threats against the judiciary, the undermining of the rule of law, the erosion of the integrity of other state institutions to poverty and poor delivery of services to the people. This state of affairs calls upon us, the citizens and owners of this country, to take necessary steps to rescue ourselves and our beautiful country from this situation”. Now, of course Azapo here presents itself as a savor of the post 1994 settlement, it lowers its horizons to the crumbs of the rainbow miracle. Worst, it cleanses itself of all radical pretensions and un-apologetically embraces the liberal fiction of formal equality. Without the return of the stolen land and wealth Azapo gives black people the burden of defending a country we don’t own. It’s the worst reproduction of the ANC Freedom Charter’s “South Africa belongs to all..”, the colonizer and the colonialist shouldering the burden of the nation equally. There is not demand for accounting, this is antiracialism at work. But it get worse, and I propose to present Azapo and DA’s Manifesto main points, side by side to demonstrate what I mean. DA and Azapo two sides of the same bloody coin? Golberg makes this important point that racism has over time mutated from racial naturalism to racial historicism. The former refers to the idea that blacks are biologically inferior, the latter on the other hand refers to the idea that the inferiority of blacks is a result of historical immaturity, the implication of the first thinking is that there is nothing we can do to save blacks from their inferior station in life. The racial historicism on the other hand makes bold that with certain investments, some civilizing blacks can be “empowered” to over-come their defects. What key about both conceptualization is the refusal to acknowledge the historically created inequalities born from enslavement, colonialism and apartheid, but even more disturbing is the implied logic that its desirable to catch up with whiteness instead of obliterating it. I suggest that both the DA and Azapo subscribe to racial historicism, and that’s what explains the proximity of political projects. Constitutional Crisis : Both Azapo and the DA move from the premise of “to the brink”, a clarion call to rescue the nation from degenerating further and thereby threaten our constitutional democracy. Both parties promise to remedy this situation, the DA promises to “put power where it belongs- in the hands of the voters and citizens”. Azapo on the other hand commits itself to “return power to the people”. How is this noble ideal to be realized? For both parties we need to some changes to the electoral system to make sure the president, premiers and Mayors are elected directly. Azapo uses the terminology of “building a strong democracy”. Of course for both parties what we have had since 1994 is now under threat and they seek to project themselves as ethical and moral saviors. In this they are joined by all opposition parties, btu I think COPE is ahead of the game with its priestly presidential candidate. Combat Crime : Both Azapo and the DA are big on this matter. Azapo dramatically declares; “that true democracy and freedom in a country are necessarily associated with safety of person and property. In addition, AZAPO views crime as an abomination to humankind. Crime is thus unacceptable in society.”, and what does it propose to end crime? Abolish gun ownership by civilians, harsher prison sentences and the reinstatement of the Scorpions. The DA on the other hand also claims with mellow drama that “people cannot take advantage of opportunities if their lives are under siege… the web of terror that crime throws over SA is so strong and far-reaching that no one is unaffected by it”, what does the DA propose? More police, “life means life” in jail, and other major investments in fighting crime. Key to both Azapo and the DA strategy is the pathologising of crime and removing it from its socio-economic roots. We enter a circular logic, we have crime because people are criminals. Whilst this sort of thinking is consistent with born again racism, its hard to understand why Azpo does not even in the manifesto link the high crime rates with the abnormal distribution of wealth and life chances in SA, which are centrally an out-come of the racist past. Fighting corruption : “AZAPO believes that public institutions should retain their legitimacy, good image and continue to enjoy public confidence. It is therefore imperative that all public officials in general should adhere to strict moral codes”. The DA on the other hand recognizes that “Corruption makes mockery of any attempt to create an open economy”. Whilst Azapo will bring in ethics to the beaucracy, the DA will bring in the Scorpions, and give them the powers they need including strengthening the Independent Complaints Directorate (IDC). Of course what is not mentioned explicitly in the manifestoes of both parties is the Arms Deal. What unites the two parties again on this point is that corruption is de-historised. The whole thinking locates crime at the 1994 moment. Consistent with the ethic of antiracialism corruption becomes racialised (blacks are criminals) but without history, there is no recognition of the very fact that corruption and crime are institutionalized, that SA was created on the back of violent crimes and corruption. Furthermore, there is no recognition of the distinction between “legalized theft” and outlawed corruption. Whilst the former is not criminalized, such as exploitation of workers, or getting BEE deals, or profiting from the misery of others (removals for platinum exploration etc). for the excluded legalized looting remains morally repugnant. The Economy : Azapo’s economic position rests on two pillars, modernizing the economy and investing in productive sectors. These moves are technology driven. Hence Azapo claims; “Technological innovation is the key to a competitive economy, which in turn will lead to both wealth and job creation” and also “The most sustainable way to invest public funds is in those areas that assist citizens to engage in productive economic activitiesn and job creation” finally we are told. “Implementing policies and programmes that promote industrial development and entrepreneurship in the rural communities and other economically depressed areas in our society”. The DA frowns upon the dependency created by the current government, it wants to create “equal opportunities” for all, a kind of de-raced meritocracy. The DA also focuses on allowing the market forces to play a more decisive role to create jobs in the environments of skills development, reviewing BEE to make sure it does not benefit the few, and also making sure that there is an efficient government. The DA has not departed from its liberal raceless, historyless economics which can only serves to maintain the apartheid status quo where the economy is concerned. The problem is Azapo shares now this sort of thinking with the DA. There is no history, no BC not socialism in the Azapo proposals, and this is a party of the fiction of “Scientific Socialism”. Its not the DA which has transformed itself its Azapo which has changed. There are calls for reparations in the economy no accounting for past lootings, no conception of how the inequalities are racialised as result of our history. Hope for change in a “competitive economy”, technological innovation and entrepreneurialism and jobs. Education is the Answer : Consistent with the thinking with is de-raced and de-historicized, the two parties posit education as the panacea for all our societal ills. The DA see education as central to its project of “open, opportunity society”. Having abandoned any claims to historical accounting and reparations, Azapo burdens the victims of our racist history with the responsibility of change through getting themselves educated. This is racial historicism at best. Azapo proposes that; “ For a country with a history of oppression, education is the most effective redress mechanism. AZAPO also sees education as being central to the development and growth of a nation”. Of course Azapo launched it Manifesto in at Mbilwi High School near Thohoyandou, to which it was dedicated, because this impoverished school have beat the odds and obtained 100% pass rate. Consequently the Azapo president told his listeners; “Mbilwi is an ordinary state school, it is situated in an ordinary community of Makwarela, with ordinary teachers that hail from our communities. Mulalo comes from an ordinary family like yours and mine in a village near Makwarela. We doff our hats to Mulalo and her class of 2008 at Mbilwi, the principal and teachers at that glorious school. They do it year in and year out. They are a shining example of what we ought to be, as a people. They are a paragon of determination, commitment, hard work, love and co-operation.” (emphasis is mine). The Azapon president said many more interesting things, made heart felt appeals for resources to make schooling, work, he regretted the inglorious past fifteen years, he apportioned no blame to the systematic nature of the exclusion and marginalization, he said nothing about the skewed wealth distribution. Mangena went on to say; “We have not, as a people, exactly covered ourselves with glory in the past fifteen years of democracy. We have seen levels of poverty rising and the gap between the rich and the poor widening. A middle income country like ours, rich in minerals, biodiversity and good people should not be in this space.” At the end he espoused the sort of BC which is devoid of any radical politics, as we are all called upon to be hard working, to be disciplined, cooperative and determined. Yes! We can! We are all now equal before the law, we should just work together get an understanding, there are no beneficiaries and losers, the raising poverty is a mystery and not liked to those who have made massive profits over the last fifteen years and before. Of course there some difference between the DA and Azapo, but these are cosmetic in my view, such as federalism vs abolishing of provinces, selective reversal of privertisation, and the call for “nationalization” without “socialization”. In the main both parties echoes the whole political field which operates within the liberal formalistic, constitutionalist frame work. Why Biko wouldn’t be Voting? We have alluded to the fact that the post 1994 political terrain in punctuated more by continuity that rupture. We tried to further show that the post 1994 moment inaugurated a born again racism, which finds expression in the constitutional precepts, laws, practiced and life chances in society. This reality stand opposed and in deep sharp contrast to what Biko stood for. we want to argue that the racist state formation inherited by the post 1994 political managers is a central consideration for staying away from the electoral process. If you arrive at this position, then whoever participates in the elections must explain how their participation does not provide legitimacy to the post 1994 racist state form. Azapo boycotted the 1994 elections on account of it being the legitimating of a sell our settlement reached in Kempton park. We haven’t heard the arguments for participation or what had changed between 1994 and 1999 when it decided to enter electoral politics. Biko’s non participation echoes what for now appears to be a position of the margins, a doing of politics differently, but still a minority position from the “public eye”. This minority is part of the millions who abstain from the electoral process for various reasons, which expands from disillusionment to deep cynicism. Then there are the vocal, conscious and principled boycotters, such the myriad of social movements (Abahlalibasemjondolo, APF, LPM, Anti eviction campaign) with their cries of “no land no vote! No housing no vote! No electricity and water no vote!”. This cry started in the last election, and has been growing, its part of the 20 000 or so protest recorded in the past few years. The principled boycotters who I think Biko would be marching with, burning tires with, blocking roads with, swearing at the pompous and over fed politician. There small energy points such as the counter culture group Blackwash, which is part of the loose “Nope” initiative. They collectively frown upon the whole electoral circus, and respond with messages such as “Fuck Voting!” and “Our Dreams don’t fit in your ballots”. As a loose collectives they have come to accept that our post 1994 liberal democratic process is a decoy for the elaboration of power. The NOPE initiative for instance counters the sterility of political parties empty rhetoric embodied in their manifestoes with a “Manifestering”, a counter manifesto of the refusers who decidedly operate outside, they don’t even hear the threatening rebuke of the IEC, “Don’t vote, don’t complain”… they place their hope in the manifestering as opposed to the manifesto which is about mediation of desires and forever postponement of life promised. The Nope Manifestering cautions against pinning our hopes on manifestoes that cannot; “...escape their framing by capitalism’s own manifesto. A manifesto that is felt everywhere by everyone. A manifesto that has taken hold in our everyday lives. That tries to get under our skins, and make us live in ways alien to our desires, the fulfilment of these always a matter of hope”. Against the empty promise of hope we cant cope with they go for the festers; “But as a sore festers, the wounds inflicted on the poor, the homeless, women, children, the unemployed, those of us excluded from learning...” This is a vindication of implausibility of doing politics with the racist polity. The state form itself must be obliterated for new possibilities to emerge, its not about defending the constitution its about defending life and liberty of the those who haven’t tasted any as yet. Frowning upon the politics of manifestoes and ballot box democracies they laugh at these ugly demented rituals; “The mandatory manifesto. Every party has one. Every organisation. Every campaign. Lists of demands to be delivered, visions to be attained in some future always on the horizon. A ritual. A routine whose rhythms refuse the possibility for any ways of being political other than the vesting of hope in a vote. And that lock us in an endless cycle of reading our desires off the possibilities imagined by others for us all”. We hear clearly the call for responsibility, discipline, hard work, respect for the dead and yesterdays heroic sacrifices, all reduced to “people died for the vote”. I’m not convinced, neither do i think Steve died so that we may have the vote, we had bigger hopes, bigger dreams than the 4x4, arms deal, Johnny walk blue (Louise the 14 special edition), the vulgarity of buying islands and the everyday violence of existence on the other hand for the millions who elections after election draw X draw in the cubicle of hope differed, sights in a deflated hope with cant cope with their basic desires, walks back to misery and exclusion. The Nope Manifestering process locates itself in the Armageddon predicted by Strini Moodley, “the coming implosion“. We asked to listen; “Today the system struggles, itself nursing injuries from our fights, our individual and collective refusals against the mantras of commodity, payment, fiscal discipline, conservation, restraint, indigent management.... The burns stretch from the eyelid to the ankle of the globe. They cannot grow any bigger. But they can still deepen”. Im saying that Biko’s politics at the time of his death runs fundamentally in a different direction to what is being offered by the electoral process predicated on the preservation of our racist state, an outcome of the 1994 miracle. So quite apart from the fact that all political parties playing the game right now, none is for Moodley or Biko’s Armageddon, there is the fundfamental question of legitimation of a state which is fundamental against the black, even as it gives them an RDP house, a grant here, a pension pay-out there, inferior education and a health system which is dangerous to the health of the many. No to say “‘94 changed fokol” as Blackwash proclaims is not to deny that somethings have been done, its to rather protest just how low the threshold has been placed, i mean not even an apartheid government’s match box house? To be outside, right now gives you a fighting chance, to be part of the solution. In or out is the question, its not difficult to see where Biko would stand, if we pay attention to what he stood for. Andile Mngxitama is a landrights activist...

Youth Empowerment: The ICEP Perspective

The InnerCity Empowerment Project, also known as Innercept (ICEP), is a new program that aims to offer both an adolescent and young adult academic environment. Innercept (ICEP) aims to focus on enhancing the life skills of at-risk youth in its co-ed, on-site educational programs. The program plans to accept no more than eight students at a time, and each will be encouraged to experience community building with their peers while balancing school, work and relationships. The goal is to “encourage a balance between physical health and fitness, environment, relationships, self-esteem and values while focusing on the individual needs, strengths and deficits of each student.”Accordingly the strengths of Innercept (ICEP) will be: A comprehensive psychiatric and therapeutic coordination of individual/family needs; groups led by “highly specialized and experienced clinicians” in the areas of psychotherapy, medical/mental health, nutrition, health and fitness, education, leisure, relationships and goals; educational specialists design tailored educational plans to facilitate learning styles and transcript building; a licensed clinical school psychologist; a holistic approach to build support and provide a balanced developmental progress; and weekly updates with program specialists and family.The ICEP Young Adult Program will offer the following: A college type of living arrangement with peers, roommates and authority figures; GED services and/or college courses through a local community college; skill building which includes money management; medication management, individual/family/group therapy; supervised health and fitness program; nutritional mentoring by registered dietitian; and daily groups dealing with schedule maintenance, decision making, leisure and responsibility.

Innercept:Towards A New Education Order

The InnerCity Empowerment Project (Innercept) aims to instill inner-city youth with a sense of pride, self-respect, self-reliance and self-motivation in order to foster the development of working class communities. By teaching youth about their history and culture, while also emphasizing the importance of modern scientific and technological knowledge, Innercept aims to promote self-knowledge, as the basis of all knowledge, and instilling within youth a spirit of self-determination, basic academic scholarship whereby, as a result, life skills will be enhanced.
ICEP proposes to design community and student-initiated programs which will promote youth and working class interests, creating a New Educational Order (NEO) and progressive, social reform agendas and public policies. Particular focus will target high "at-risk" populations, providing mentorship, advisement, peer and professional counseling and academic preparation programs and workshops teaching working class youth to empower themselves in order to develop a cadre of activists capable of activating social and economic justice leading to collective, community empowerment.