Introduction by Zenzile Khoisan

Veldrift meeting to tackle coloured/ Khoi marginalisation

On Saturday 27 January a public meeting has been scheduled in the Noordhoek Hall of the West Coast town of Veldrift, where prominent leaders of slave, coloured, Khoi and San political and cultural constituencies will come together to discuss the marginalisation or perceived marginalisation in the contemporary South African social, cultural, political and economic landscape.

The meeting, hosted by the Centre for the Advancement of Pan African empowerment, features top former and current leaders of the African National Congress, as well as leaders from other parties, formations, and structures, including Rev Chris Nissen of the Human Rights Commission, National Khoi and San Council representative Chantal Bruckner, former ANC Western Cape chair Marius Fransman and West Coast ANC leader Sammy Claassen, who is currently facing charges from the party for discussing the national question and the marginalisation of coloured people in South Africa.

The charges against Claassen stem from his public positions stated on social media, which have drawn widespread support, significantly from current and former ANC leaders and members who believe that the ventilation of issues related to policies on restitution, empowerment, equity and affirmative action can no longer be kept in abeyance.

The public meeting called by Cape Forum is set to broach what many feel are sensitive questions, which could further erode support for the party, at least in the Northern Cape and Western Cape where coloured or people of slave or first people descent constitute significant voting blocks.

Organisers of the event have confirmed the Veldrift saamtrek (gathering) will be an eye-opener as it would bring together in one hall leaders from parties who in the past have not concurred on many issues.

However, what does seem to be the catalyst for the gathering and the structure that could be launched in its wake is a growing tide of discontent over resource allocation, fishing and other rights being stripped from these communities, discriminatory employment practices, and what is perceived to be the currency for all parties of discounting and discarding these communities and their leaders for expediency once their utility has been exhausted or they assert themselves independently.

As a background to this event former ANC Western Cape chair Marius Fransman has written the following discussion paper titled Understanding the national question in post-apartheid South Africa.

Understanding the National Question in post-apartheid South Africa

Marius Fransman

As South Africa moves into a new era with the ascendency of Cyril Ramaphosa to the presidency of the African National Congress and ultimately to the president of South Africa, there are numerous critical questions before the nation. Most notable among these questions is what shape and form the economic, social and cultural outlook of our society will take within the context of a rapidly changing international environment.

Within this context, almost a quarter of a century since the dawn of democracy, the issue of the National Question can no longer be ignored, as it presents our country with one of the most pertinent contemporary challenges, one that we can only ignore at our peril. This specific question is one that has to be addressed if we are truly to realise any form of sustainable social cohesion and nationhood.

In our specific context the national question cannot be understood or addressed outside of the national liberation struggle, which resulted from the natural quest of our peoples to free themselves from the shackles of colonialism and apartheid, which gave rise to dispossession, genocide and racist and political repression.

The earliest of these events to challenge the tyranny of our oppression in this country occurred in the late 15th century with skirmishes in Saldanha Bay and Mossel Bay respectively.

This was followed in the early 16th century with one of the major defeats of colonial onslaught in Africa, when Khoi warriors on the shores of present day Salt River defeated the feared Portuguese militarist Francisco De Almeida on 28 February 1510.

Since that time there were numerous wars of resistance waged by the Khoi and San, against both the British and the Dutch colonial forces, which reflected their refusal to accept subjugation.

This is critical to understanding our current day dilemmas in this country, for much of that resistance history is not even reflected in our national narrative and is not carried in our history books.

I refer to this history, much of which the majority of our country’s people do not know, because in examining how to correct the wrongs of the past and redress that injustice, we need to know what occurred as a result of those first wars of resistance.

What cannot be denied is that the Khoi and the San were the first to be dispossessed of their lands and subjected to a methodical physical and cultural genocide which included wide-spread displacement and land theft, the banning and destruction of Khoi and San culture, including the original languages and cultural structures and the classification of the first indigenous peoples, and the slaves who endured brutal servitude in the colony as coloured, to ensure they had no claim to social cohesion, no claim to the land of their forebears, and could not assert the right to self determination.

This is important today, because, 24 years after the end of apartheid and the dawn of democracy we still have not addressed those original injustices. We now have pieces of legislation pending on the recognition of Khoi and San leadership, but this legislation does not address how to rectify what occurred to the vast majority of the people, constituting several million. This constituency can correctly assert their right to be called the descendants of the first peoples and the slaves, who bore the first and most devastating blows of colonialism and whose dehumanisation was further entrenched by apartheid.

Today, 24 years after apartheid were have numerous cases in which descendants of the first people and have been denied access to jobs, employment opportunities, land restitution, economic development rights and cultural rights, including the right to linguistic recognition which are granted to other cultural groups and peoples who comprise the South African nation.

Then there is the question of legislation aimed at rectifying the historical exclusion and injustice that the oppressed in this country had to endure.

The legislation dealing with affirmative action, empowerment and equity defines black as coloured, Indian and African, but there is particular emphasis on African which has led to many people, who were defined as anything other than African, being totally marginalised in every sphere of endeavour.

This has given rise to numerous complaints before chapter 9 institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission, while there have also been several challenges in the labour and equality courts.

The most notable of these was a ruling two years ago by the labour court, which held that the department of correctional services was wrong when it overlooked and did not appoint coloured officials even though they were suitably qualified and were the best candidates.

There are several other examples in almost every arena, including the allocation of mining and fishing rights, the allocation of bursaries for further and higher education and skewed implementation of employment equity in the tourism sector and in the service industry. In short there is a growing tide of anger rising among those classified as coloured, the descendants of the first people and the slaves, about their treatment in contemporary South Africa, which many claim is akin to being a step child, a surplus people, whose needs can only be dealt with after others have had their share.

It is this rising tide of anger, resulting from the destructive and disturbing legacies of colonialism, and the failure of the ruling party, which has its roots in the movement for national liberation, to deal with the National Question.

The broad issue to which the National Question in any particular context speaks is built around the inalienable international right of peoples or nations to self determination.

In trying to come to grips with what exactly this question entails, it helps to draw on the wisdom Guinea Bissau liberation leader and thinker Amilcar Cabral.

Cabral provided significant insight into this question during his presentation History as a Weapon at Syracuse University in New York in February 1970, which was part of the Eduardo Mondlane Memorial Lecture series.

In that presentation Cabral stated: “Just as happens with the flower in a plant, in culture there lies the capacity (or the responsibility) for forming and fertilizing the seedling which will assure the continuity of history, at the same time assuring the prospects for evolution and progress of the society in question. Thus it is understood that imperialist domination by denying the historical development of the dominated people, necessarily also denies their cultural development.

“It is also understood why imperialist domination, like all other foreign domination for its own security, requires cultural oppression and the attempt at direct or indirect liquidation of the essential elements of the culture of the dominated people. The study of the history of national liberation struggles shows that generally these struggles are preceded by an increase in expression of culture, consolidated progressively into a successful or unsuccessful attempt to affirm the cultural personality of the dominated people, as a means of negating the oppressor culture.

“Whatever may be the conditions of a people's political and social factors in practicing this domination, it is generally within the culture that we find the seed of opposition, which leads to the structuring and development of the liberation movement. In our opinion, the foundation for national liberation rests in the inalienable right of every people to have their own history whatever formulations may be adopted at the level of  international law.

“The objective of national liberation, is therefore, to reclaim the right, usurped by imperialist domination, namely: the liberation of the process of development of national productive forces. Therefore, national liberation takes place when, and only when, national productive forces are completely free of all kinds of foreign domination. The liberation of productive forces and consequently the ability to determine the mode of production most appropriate to the evolution of the liberated people, necessarily opens up new prospects for the cultural development of the society in question, by returning to that society all its capacity to create progress.

“A people who free themselves from foreign domination will be free culturally only if, without complexes and without underestimating the importance of positive accretions from the oppressor and other cultures, they return to the upward paths of their own culture, which is nourished by the living reality of its environment, and which negates both harmful influences and any kind of subjection to foreign culture. Thus, it may be seen that if imperialist domination has the vital need to practice cultural oppression, national liberation is necessarily an act of culture.” (Amilcar Cabral, 1970 – History as a weapon).

It is in the spirit of giving shape and form to Cabral’s words that there is now an intense stirring on the ground across the country, but particularly in the Western and Northern Cape, the Eastern Cape and Gauteng, from people classified as coloured, who are descended from the first indigenous people of this country and the slaves.

This stirring on the ground is fuelled by an increasing racist and chauvinist position adopted even by certain leaders of the ruling party who hold forth that equity, historical redress, rectification and empowerment has a hierarchy that should follow the rule black, but place emphasis on African in particular.

It is precisely this type of reasoning that had brought the blowback from our people, whose trust is broken every time they have to stand in the back of the line because they are not African. What is further distressing is that there have been numerous so-called Africanist positions, which have even gone further, to associate the descendants of slaves and the first peoples with the colonial oppressor.

Then there are other actions of the ruling party, particularly its Western Cape Provincial structure, which has outrageously  moved to charge one of its leaders with misconduct, for raising the issues that are apparent to everyone.

Maybe if the Western Cape ANC leaders read and fully understand Cabral’s contribution on this critical subject, they would move to educate their leaders and members on the National Question, rather than attacking and bringing Sammy Claassen, a leader from the West Coast, up on charges for being the messenger of what is vibrantly in the public domain.

This speaks volumes about ideological and political development of the ANC leadership in the province and reveals an institution that has lost its way and now acts out of desperation and insecurity. Even as the party moves to discipline Claassen, there are very serious developments on the ground which shows that the party has not properly read the tide and gauged the mood of the people.

A platform for unity, action and the assertion of the right to self-determination

Over the last few years there have been several initiatives which were aimed at bringing leaders of the descendants of the slaves and the first people closer together, specifically in respect of creating a platform through which issues related to the marginalisation of first nation and slave descendants can be addressed.

One of these interventions aimed at fostering constructive dialogue was the Cape Forum, which over two years has facilitated several round-table and public dialogue discussions on matters of critical public interest.

This progressive non-governmental organisation, which was founded expressly to promote non-sectarian dialogue among various structures and individuals, featured several probing interrogations of our contemporary society, including the question of land restitution, the economy and social cohesion.

What emerged from the qualitative inputs of these discussions  hosted by the Cape Forum was a clear expression of the need to create avenues for engagement with African and Southern governments and corporate players, especially those working towards consolidating post-independence gains, and to engage proactively to promote human rights, sovereignty and development for the people of the South.

It is therefore natural that in the current situation where first people and slave descendants are actively asserting their cultural and human rights and demanding respect that the platform being created follows a non-sectarian approach, aimed at building maximum principled unity.

In this same vein it is certainly untrue that it is just the African National Congress and its failure to deal with the National Question, which is the reason for such a platform or network being created. It is not just the African National Congress, but every other structure and party in this society who have failed dismally on this issue.

As leaders across political persuasions and societal institutions, we must all accept we came from different approaches and tactical considerations in dealing within this very complex matter. We should accept collective responsibility where failure took place in these matters of national importance. We must accept reality that with various levels of success and/or failures we used our respective positions in every of our various organisations, it’s respective internal processes, to raise issue of National Question – and we must accept that such an approach couldn’t liberate the debate in its truest sense.

There is a very wide perception among our people that all parties have conveniently utilised their votes and resources, and also that all these parties and structures have also discarded leaders of this community when it expedient.

The network builds on real concerns, and speaks directly on the issues

This platform is necessary because through it the leadership of the people working on the ground can bring their concerns directly into the political, cultural or economic arena. In other words, the platform ensures that descendants of first people and slaves speak on their own issues for themselves, not through others, through proxies.

This platform has to address the concerns of communities, ranging from schools, fighting unfair practices in employment and economic opportunities.

Such a platform can also be instrumental in preventing the removal of indigenous marine resource rights from our communities who have been stripped of their indigenous fishing rights and also fight for the benefits of all our military veterans.

Structurally the platform would have to be the pathway to a more fully developed instrument, but that is not the primary objective of the platform, which is to create a space where all who truly wish to build this constituency would be welcome.

It would also mean very real groundwork, such as connecting with community structures on the ground, sometimes even resurrecting the advice offices which always had strong traction within our communities.

There can also be no doubt that a platform or network of this nature will bring together constituencies and even leaders who, because of affiliations have become estranged, so this will certainly also involve crossing over uncomfortable divides and listening to persons we have written off.

However, in the process of having to work without shortcuts, there can only be the sharpening of perspective on the critical issues, as this will involve getting down into the trenches to building formidable structures that deal with the real issues faced by our peoples.

What ties the communities and leaders to such an envisaged platform is an overwhelming cry from our people on the ground that there is now a need to stop taking abuse from any party, any structure or any institution. There is also a deeply held conviction that things will not get better until our people speak from one platform, with one voice.

Indeed this has become imperative because we have watched how time and time again our people have sidelined or just discarded, how in some institutions such as the correctional

service, the police force and the military our people were just refused promotion, how in academia many professors were told to stand back while juniors of other groups got top positions and how this narrative is replicated across every sphere.

It is within this moment of decision that a platform that reaches across the board and speaks directly to the concerns of all descendants of the first people and the slaves, pertinently

those who have been classified as coloured in this country, where the DNA of their forebears is their inalienable right to be called the first indigenous African people in South Africa.

Cape Forum is a Pan-African centre which brings together leaders from business, government and civil society in order to do advocacy and strategic interventions on public affairs and diplomacy. It brings these sectors of leaders together, in order to shape the public discourse and therefore help shape Africa’s leaders and her future.

ENDS