Freedom next time

"Philela Gilwa writes on freedom in his lifetime"

"In this very same atmosphere of having honest discourse on Race, Reconciliation, Freedom and other matters of national interest that beg to be engaged fervently and unapologetically without any fear of controversy and not finding sweet resonance with the firm sentiments that most people dearly maintain on the 1994 victory that has eventually turned out to be monumental falsehood. As a response to the current trajectory and some of the events which have become a daily occurrence of late, thus compelling us to resuscitate social dialogue to frankly address contradictions. It is imperative for our generation that, after defining our struggle in a rainbow nation that was never there and after all the necessary criticism we level against the inherently anti-black economic system that continually suck the hope out of our hearts, We must, through a culture of self-criticism, having dialogues, convening platforms for heated discussions/debates, and favorable atmosphere for the contestation and consolidation of ideas, shoulder the herculean task of providing feasible economic proposals so to combat and counter the harsh realities we subjected to.

More so, To counter the jack-boot of structural/institutionalized racism(white supremacist matrix), through sharpened ideological weapons/ groundbreaking tools of analysis,we must iron out the contradictions amongst us. We must also guard against being bamboozled by any hogwash, against being caught up in useless demagoguery rhetoric, and populists slogan(eering) which bears no fruits but We must encourage robust engagements that are rationally channeled towards squaring against our collective plight.

To the current 'democratic' dispensation, History will surely have its say. It will not tell a story of genuine reconciliation(restorative justice/ retribution) and born free generation. It will not tell a story of democracy and equality. History will tell the story of young people born at the dawn of a democratic dispensation who were filled with optimism about an idealistic rainbow nation that never was, a brandwagon and delusion that was championed and spearheaded by statesman(Nelson Mandela) and religious moguls(Desmond Tutu). History will tell the story of black children whose humanity is destroyed by the brutality of life in the marginalized and under-resourced apartheid settler's regime constructs called townships, a modern day concentration camps where Africans remain hopelessly downtrodden economically, living in sub-standard houses, to top that, time and again used to maximize votes and election's number games by power mongers, reduced to an animali(stic) existence and forced to dig their flesh for survival under the merciless white-monopoly capitalist system. It will tell the story of what it means to be black in a democratic south africa; that poverty, destitution and hunger continue to have a black face. History will tell that democracy is just a word when millions of blacks are starving, unemployed, subservient and landless.

De-racializing government doesn't translate or paramount(s) to the restructuring of the economy. It was Biko's depth and range of thought that cautioned against the meaningless political breakthrough marked by co-option of elites into a rotten system, when he observed that in South Africa there is such an ill distribution of wealth that any form of political freedom that does not touch on the proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.

Needless to say,South Africa as we have experienced it, is but a tale of two worlds where blacks live in hell whilst their counterparts live in heaven of an undeserved privilege accumulated through the sweat and victimization of black bodies, but mostly it has taught us that, democracy is impossible without political freedom but political freedom is not the ultimate objective of the revolutionary struggle. The ultimate objective is economic freedom, the emancipation of our people from clutches of economic bondage. Political conquest and subjugation has, arguably, been partially lifted, now the struggle for economic freedom continues till the vast majority is emancipated from the economic subjugation and exploitation that defined the pre-1994 period.

We are our own liberators!

Freedom Next time Mzala!

ECONOMIC FREEDOM IN OUR LIFETIME"

By Philela Gilwa

Fight or flight: When the underdogs strike back

"As the oppressed we are not instigators or initiators of violent or forceful means. We are really just underdogs striking back: may we therefore so be painted."

The rhetoric of some following the narrative of protests around the country, whether organized, sporadic or spontaneous, usually has a tone of “we really support your cry but ag, this violence is really not helping”. While it is expected and understandable for supporters, bystanders and those who are not directly involved to encourage and promote a “non-violence” approach, there should be a consistency in understanding the climate of what could be deemed as a “crisis”. The language policy and institutional culture at the University of Pretoria (now to be referred to as the Panoptic) is not reflective of a transformed post-apartheid society . The recent events have not mushroomed out of thin air. It is not a coincidence that students of the Panoptic are split into two. The reality is that the seeds of discord have long been sown perpetuated in our daily interactions even symbolized by the names of the venues we attend classes in, up to the coding of the modules we are enrolled in. The Panoptic is therefore systematically organized to ensure oppressive order as a norm. This systematic oppression is so orderly that the black English speaking child is expected to actually identify with this Panoptic proudly even unto upholding its name and image honourably outside of its boundaries. The system harbours the residue of apartheid subtly. The Panoptic aims to be a home to all yet it linguistically and culturally esteems one language and culture over the other. It fails to recognize the importance of integration and transforming its complexion to truly best represent the country it is located in. The exacerbating factor in this regard is how the apathy against proactive initiatives towards change is consistent with a disregard for black lives and a recognition that they don’t really matter that much. The Panoptic’s stance is consistent with the perspective of a supremacist. That is that whatever is inconsistent with the oppressive norms of its history is to be regarded as unimportant or at least not worthy of it being inconvenienced. It therefore puts students of black descent on the backfoot as in endeavouring to engage the Panoptic, there is a concurrent struggle of being recognized by the Panoptic as humans deserving equal standing. The Panoptic views the protestors as subhuman, hooligans, thugs, monkeys and even dogs. The Panoptic will therefore employ its instruments of power to ensure that that is the narrative which ought to perpetuate to delay and hinder civil discussion.

As “hooligans” we agree that violence should be avoided- but honestly, this is not at all costs. Violence becomes a necessary response given a hostile climate coupled with physical provocation. There seems to be a general disregard for the humanity of protesters as human who also get angry. We are “hooligans” angered by systematic, historic and cultural oppression. Anger is such a powerful tool for liberating black people that it is justifiable when it turns into violence against a system which has not seen, heard or felt us. When the oppressed and disadvantaged are constantly undermined and having exhausted all meaningful ways of addressing an issue at hand, the resolution to use violence is justifiable. This is based on the proportionality of the grievance. It is a constant struggle of aligning oneself and incorporating oneself within a system which seeks to exclude one’s existence; a system which refuses to acknowledge the black child or her pain. Protests against the language policy are also a blow against white supremacy. To have a “roll over in the name of avoiding violence” approach is good, but not when it translates into succumbing to the superiority complex the Panoptic has- what then is the meaning of “protest”? As “hooligans” we will to do away with white supremacy, privilege and anti-blackness in its manifestations at the institution. This takes primacy and as “thugs” all means necessary will be employed, including but not limited to violence. Violence is not the primary of the means but when it is expedient it becomes the order of the moment. This is dependent on a number of factors. However, simply put, when confronted with violence, and when there is an obstacle to an objective it usually becomes the only alternative. It may be argued that it does not solve much but may it also be  acknowledged that it does make one listen. It is a bargaining point and our catharsis. Through it there is expression of deep rooted pain against long standing injustices. Whenever violence is used it has been seen that those who are without a voice have found a way to provoke reaction from the establishment. The violence is symbolic of the violence faced daily as its repercussions are as costly in the daily life of a black child (if not more). To fight or take flight is always the option faced by those standing up to the system. To fight or take flight will remain her prerogative. It is really a no brainer when the Panoptic does not recognize “peace” as a legitimate method of solution.

"“Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.” 

― Assata Shakur 

The violence which erupts in the Panoptic nowadays is actually a reaction from the “thugs” “hooligans” “monkeys” and “dogs” who have experienced dehumanizing and racial slurs from those whose privilege the Panoptic is protecting.  This privilege is not going to be let go solely through peaceful talks as the Panoptic has made it clear that it is an ineffective strategy towards change. It is within this context we therefore have to view whatever is depicted as “hooliganism” or “barbarianism”. The black child is firstly dehumanized and then after she is treated like a dog. The black child is oppressed by the white capitalist establishment and she then becomes an underdog. Those who are protesting against the Panoptic’s chains are underdogs, underdogs who are very capable of striking back. This is the perpetual reality behind the forceful demonstrations.  As the oppressed we are not instigators or initiators of violent or forceful means. We are really just underdogs striking back: may we therefore so be painted.

The Revolution is not for SALE

The Revolution is not for SALE
ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall.

What informs this body of work is in the wake of an unprecedented success of a movement that was able to galvanize students politically affiliated and those that are not to a common cause and such a project was specifically #TuksFeesMustFall a resultant concept or trend if you may, from the broader national movement #FeesMustFall. Such a movement’s name is #UPrising, a lot is in a name especially when you conceive of the student body at the University of Pretoria affectionately referred to as Tuks. From the ashes that happened to be the fragments that held students back in terms of a convergence of voices was the reality we had been confronted with and like a phoenix UP rose from this grey area. From race, political affiliation, class and gender is but a few of the spoken of fragments. Although what the movement managed to achieve is history in the making given the institutional space in which their exploits unfolded, criticisms are present in light of the manifestations of the week that has passed. These criticisms are not afforded to discourage, but they are put forth in order for meaningful engagement and the aversion of elementary errors that have the potential to derail the movement or the worst case scenario put its members in danger were manifest especially on/from the 22nd of the month of October. The theories of social movements and resource mobilization will inform the argumentative edifice and criticisms to follow.

Resource Mobilization is a major sociological theory in the study of social movements. This emerged in the 70s but has been in existence since the days of the father of mobilization that asked a very elaborative and infamous question ‘what is to be done?’ Vladimir Lenin. Resource mobilization stresses the ability of a movement’s members to (1) acquire resources and to (2) mobilize people towards accomplishing the movement’s goals. This is contrary to the traditional theory of collective behavior that views social movements are deviant and irrational. Conversely, resource mobilization sees them as rational social institutions that are key actors in the terrain of contentious politics. According to resource mobilization theory, at the core a social movement organization works towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure. The last two factors namely, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure are pivotal to any social movement. Had #UPrising elected to act outside alliances with the respective political organizations on the campus there would be no need to refine organizational structure. But the movement chose to go into an alliance, thus it was obligatory that power and influence to be shared, as to avoid a concentration of power to one group. The differences might have been caucused in private but their ramifications were evident to a tuned eye coupled with intellect. Put simply, working towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media does not warrant ownership of the revolution. Social movements and student movements’ alike need all of the above resources to be effective, as deviance and grievances alone do not bring about social change.

This theory is one that assumes that individuals are rational, (not always, as a tendency of being affective is also a strong possibility) individuals weigh the costs and benefits of movement participation and act only if benefits outweigh costs and this does not however exempt the so-called funders that decide to find a cause. To what ends do the means of funding a revolution entail? What is to be done that student movements do not fall prey to capital tendencies? What conditions and terms did the movement give to the funders? Or does there lay a possibility that the funder dictates to the movement because of the resource in question? These questions are informed by the dynamics of capital’s capability to reconfigure itself and be embedded in social relations. Our funders are capitalists we should at least agree. In the contemporary configuration of capitalism the exchange is no longer one that subscribes to a cash exchange alone. This needs to be looked at by movements as to avoid co-option to capitalist interests in how they go about reaching their goals.

Student movements are goal-oriented, but organization is more important than resources. Organization means the interactions and relations between social movement organizations. In the Tuks context the power dynamic that saw the concentration of power fall to one party and subsequent allegations of sabotage by others are as a result of the reluctance to share power and ideas. Again, it is not only about power but an acknowledgement that parties to the alliance need to take into cognizance that as individual entities they possess both capabilities and limits. A case in point here is that time and again political organizations in the University of Pretoria have attempted to mobilize students but their efforts are often thwarted by the directive that in mobilizing students the end-goal is to align them to a political ideology, to form part of a constituency. What UPrising managed to achieve is to mobilize students inter-sectionally, this mobilization cut-across race, gender, political affiliation, different societal class positions, students-staff dynamic and levels of education (undergraduate and postgraduate). But what this movement lacked was the strategic acumen that is deployed in contentious politics, a terrain that political societies relish and are flamboyant in enganging. This highlights the gaps in limits and capabilities in all parties concerned, a call that warrants complementary convergence of the two. Efficiency of the organizational infrastructure is a key resource in itself.

Resource mobilization theory can be divided into two camps. McCarthy and Zald are the originators and major advocates of the classical entrepreneurial (economic) version of the theory while Tilly and McAdam are proponents of the political version of resource mobilization. The former argues that grievances are not sufficient to explain creation of social movements. Instead access to and control over resources is the crucial factor. The grand law of economics supply and demand seems to give a thorough explanation of the ebb flow of resources to and from the movements, and that individual actions (or lack thereof) is accounted for by rational choice theory. This should not however operate in isolation of the latter; the political model focuses on the political struggle instead of economic factors. This division also implies the organic complementary pairing of the two.


What unfolded on the 22nd of October 2015 was rather unfortunate, but we should appreciate it nonetheless as lessons were drawn from it. From #OccupyBurnett to a possible takeover by unknown agents a phenomenon that could have been averted had there been a synergy from all alliance partners. Suspicion among the alliance partners became pronounced and the ends of people’s fingers aimed at their counterparts. It is imperative that I flag the existence of a contemporary capitalist class that thrives when groups they are part of are fragmented. Student movements need to stay vigilant and be on the look-out of capitalistic agendas that may potentially derail the movement and dispirit the masses. We need to take ownership as students of our student movements and let whatever alumni participate only on an advisory capacity. In owning such a movement let us seek our own financial backing and refrain from accepting funds from funders that are willful in such a way that they want a seat at the table.

We have to concede that the power dynamics that unfolded because of a preoccupation with platforms and a concentration of power by one group against the others was a gamble with the safety and lives of students as collateral. However, this was an operational exercise an equivalent of building a car as we simultaneously drive it. We have gone the distance and we have learnt. By ‘we’ I mean the entire student body of the University of Pretoria. The fees have indeed fallen, but they are not flat on the ground as I’m of the belief that they are on their knees. Them falling will be the day we realize free quality education in our lifetime. This was just a small victory of a long gruesome war against the dominant mode of production which is the capitalistic logic. We still need to surmount battles such as transformation and academic exclusions in our institutions amongst others. Reflection upon this victory is necessary and this is by no means a rule book on what is to be done when a movement is in motion. Rather these are pointers on what we duly need to consider as a movement in concert with other movements. We were strategically outplayed however by university management; in that the suspension of academic activities that subsequently meant that support services had to be halted meant that we were thwarted an opportunity to mobilize cleaners in our broader struggle. What I mean by this I have written and articulated in another paper of which I will make available.
The words of a student leader by the name Junior Ackotia hit home when he said to a group of students ‘no-one has ownership of the revolution, because should this be the case, then we have a problem on our hands’.

We have come, we have seen and given the goal we set to achieve we have definitely conquered. But we could do much better if we reiterate this: #ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall. The Revolution is not for SALE! To non-political affiliated groups realize your limits in the terrain of contentious politics and to student political organizations in the terrain of intersectional struggles and mobilization realize your limits and may both converge as we continue to make history in our lifetime.

Amandla!!!

By Tebogo Winston Mogoru

The University of Pretoria as the panoptic #TuksRiggedElections

[The following is a critical analysis of #TuksRiggedElections by Tebogo Winston Mogoru]

I must first concede that this was a difficult piece to think of and write because in the midst of events and as they were unfolding, one needed to circumscribe the scope of manifestations and circumvent any prognostication of what may come, this piece is both a critic and in-depth analysis of power and the interplay thereof between university management and the student body being represented by the student front (SASCO, AFRIFORUM & EFFSC_UP). 

The panoptic is an architectural design of a prison never built. It is not what is that counts, but it is what is thought that is the world. A prison concept it remains, materially it doesn't exist, but the gaze informs this analysis of the #TuksRiggedElections. 

September 1st 2015, was election day at the said university. A student representative council was to yield from this democratic process. Days leading up to the election had campus abuzz. An explosion of difference from race, opinion and political affiliation was what it was. Student activism was to be reincarnated or rejuvenated as it never died, but was stifled and read on to found why and how. Upon hearing the news that the election had been rigged led one to deeply reflect and unpack the taken for granted notions of power that this very university practiced, but were never obvious as they were subtle. Nothing is more powerful than soft power as it caresses you whilst controlling you. You are being controlled, but you know it not. Bewildered in my disbelief my once apathetic self took a surreptitious look (side-eye) at the state of affairs...

In reflections on the colonial state by John Comaroff one finds a quote and in part that very quote unpacks both the capabilities and affect these subtle forms of power wield. "he was stripped and put in a cell with a stone floor and no glass in the window... He said in his letter that I was not the cold that bothered him, it was being watched all the time. The eye in the door ... an elaborately painted eye [inside the cell]..., was deeply disturbing... 'S not so bad so long as it stays in the door. You start worrying when it gets in [your head]". Pat Baker wrote this in The eye in the door, pg 36.

Let us negate the effects of the architecture on the individual and look at the psychological effects that the prison affects the individual and the analysis will unfold subsequently. 'being watched all the time' are we though or the eye is already in our heads? As election day drew nearer, anticipation and oddity were concomitant in what I came to observe. The drawing closer of the elections was equal to the mushrooming in numbers of reflective vests and security radios. Was this to ensure that the elections were safe or was this an apartheid like display of power? From election day, followed by days of alleging that the election was rigged the number of vests and big-bellied security personnel doubled if I'm being nice, but I think triple the number would be accurate. Every entry point on campus had at least two to three guards. The exponential growth was as a resultant of the protests on campus, first of its kind, in that the student front was in the front. Adversaries are what these political organization's are on a normal day, but not on that particular day (university publication perdeby reports this to be on the 3rd of September 2015), the political rivalry between all three took a well deserved leave as the three joined hands. 

What stands out for me though, as I find the coalition of the three as long overdue, is that you have a claim that is articulated through protest that the election was rigged and the response before any other that is formal was the doubling up of security personnel. The protests were peaceful and some individuals found themselves locked in certain buildings as a result of their none participation. #TuksRiggedElections had gained momentum and this was beginning to show in instances where a protest which is an articulation of difference in opinion and discontent was an equivalent of a state of emergency, did you see the no. of  security guards. Call me odd, but this highlighted reactions only a conservative would exude and this university is very conservative of which it needs to be challenged and called out in doing so. 

In moving back to the eye that we're still trying to figure out where it is at, I feel it is already in the mind and the actions that follow can serve as cues that instill the notion that you're being watched. This is what stifles debate at the said university. Video footage was being taken as the protests went on. Odd I found that occurrence to be. As every corner and perimeter on campus has a security camera, can't footage be taken from these and access there. Were the hand held cameras that were now at the level of the individual a reminder that you're being watched and participation no matter how you feel about a certain issue is at your own peril. Foucault's idea of governmentality dawned on me. What is the mentality of governance at Tuks made of?

What this idea implies is that within states  and institutes of higher learning as a microcosm of broader society is organized in such a way that a monopoly of knowledge as well as the means of force are concentrated in the hands of the governor (University of Pretoria management). Such a concentration is indicative of a shift from direct discipline to self-regulation. Remember the hand held camera that served as a reminder? What I mean by this is that during the protests or moments leading up to the power play between the power holders and claimants, you had a fraction of the latter group fragmented and deterred even before engagement. This makes it impossible to organize and you end up rubbing up the wrong way potential participants by locking some of them in libraries, humanities building and the client services centre just to mention a few. What gets cited as the reason for retraction by students or non-participation is that there exists a prospect of being expelled or better yet being victimized in isolation from the collective. A measure that ensures that the student body is both docile and fragmented in terms of opinion and the convergence of ideas.

When you think of it, it actually works and effectively so for the university, conversely to the detriment of the student organizations (divide and conquer  if you may). The irony of our time I call it (democracy = apartheid). However, this phenomenon should not be viewed in isolation and it be assumed that only student political organizations take preference. It is if you look at it closely it is all around campus. 

The claim made by the student front #TuksRiggedElections is not a cry that yields from lost seats in the election race, but a claim made in light of the allegation that the election was rigged and the student front operating in concert are willing and as a matter of fact have furnished the necessary evidence. So for clarity's sake, the claim is against a process that is deemed to be just was tempered with to yield unjust results as a consequence. A conundrum if you ask me what this is. The dilemma I face is here and probably most of you share this sentiment, free and fair elections is what the chapter 9 institution, the Independent Electoral Commission upholds, but if an election is to be rigged under the auspices of the said institution in facilitating the 2015 SRC elections at the University of Pretoria is basically spitting on the very democracy we espouse as a country. Because what was the point of even having elections if the predetermined result was to come from undermining the very processes that everyone within the confines of the university must subscribe?

And the thinking continues

By Tebogo Winston Mogoru