Beyond ‪#‎FeesMustFall‬

The following was delivered by a Mosibudi Rassie Rasethaba at a panel discussion at the University of Pretoria on the 14th April 2016

“Good Afternoon fellow panellists, colleagues and fallists

When I was asked to be on this panel today I was a bit reluctant as I believe that I was not in the right state of mind to have this talk yet. I am still trying to figure out where the fallist movement is and where it is going and what it really stands for. So do not expect too many answers from what I will say here today and with that said, let me start off with this.

“Each generation must discover its mission, fulfill it or betray it, in relative opacity.” This is a quote from the popular and widely read Frantz Fanon.

I start off with this quote because I believe we have a mission and it was long discovered before we were born. Our mission was discovered by those that went before us. You can find them all over the African continent, some are known but many have been erased from our collective memory. These are the young women and men of Africa who refused to be the subjects and servants of the Queens and Kings of Europe, who defied the unjust and brutal rulership of Kings and Queens unknown to them. These are the Haitians that led a revolution against the colonial masters.

Its 2016 and not much has changed from the colonial times. Yes, we might have what we call a democratic country, access to universities such as these but it is all the same. What we have today is a neo-colonial system that is not run by monarchs but multi-national corporations, bankers and Western powers. They dictate to the world, their colonies what they should do. Like the old colonial system that was managed by the indigenous elites who served the interests of their masters in Europe, the not so new system is managed by Governments and heads of institutions such as our very own University.

Now one of the question that was posed to us, is how the University of Pretoria together with government reacted to the demands put forward by the students? And the simple answer to that is that they responded like any good manger of the colonial system would. The university together with government responded to short term and immediate solutions to silence the potential overthrow of the unjust system. They pacified the students by throwing a 0% increase on fees and forming so called transformation committees with no true intention to transform or in this case decolonize as the fallist movement has imagined it.

The main focus of today’s discussion is decolonization of the curriculum. But before I go into that I want to say it is impossible to have a decolonized curriculum whilst we live in the colony. The so called curriculum will serve no good to the people of the colony, because in order for citizens to live and prosper in the colony they need the tools of the colony. So what I am proposing here today is that we decolonize Africa. The land and wealth must be returned to its rightful owners, and once that is done we can start speaking. When the indigenous people of Africa reclaim back the land their dignity and humanity will be restored and they will be able to speak on issues that matter to them. At the current moment it is difficult and near impossible to speak of a decolonized curriculum because academics know where their bread and butter comes from. Teaching or producing any knowledge outside of the dominant Eurocentric epistemology means no food on the table for you. This puts academics in a very difficult position, even though they want to deviate from the popular Eurocentric world view they are unable to.

With that said, I think focus needs to be put into the new student movements or fallist movement. Those are the spaces where a decolonized education needs to be taught. These are the spaces that help shape our thinking in order to overthrow the current unjust system that seeks to benefit a select few whilst marginalising and subjugating the majority. What is very evident is that these progressive spaces themselves need some house cleaning, failure to do so will only see a new group of elite intellectuals being produced. What the fallist movement has taught us, is that colonialism and imperialism has affected us violently in multiple and different ways. This means that whatever knowledge that is being discussed and produced needs to be intersectional in nature and be aware of how power and oppression operates on different levels. This is in order for the overthrow of the current unjust system as to usher in a new system that does not recreate the old oppressive and violent tendencies of the colony.

The fallist movement finds itself in a very difficult position. There isn’t one dominant guiding ideology, making it difficult for unity thus slowing down the progress. However through open dialogue, honesty and willingness to learn from each other the movement can achieve what those that have gone before us have failed to do. Overthrow the colonial masters, reclaim our humanity, dignity and the land.

To end off, I would like to say that if our movement cannot speak to the gogo in Giyani, the girl in Kuruman, the miner in Marikana it is a useless movement that is really not concerned with the true liberation of our people.  

It would be unfair of me to not acknowledge the resistance that has been shown by our black sisters and brothers in the former black universities, to our sisters in brothers in Rhodes must fall, Open Stellenbosh, BSM, Transform Wits and other Progressive student formations such as EFFSC and PASMA. Without their collective effort the project of decolinisation would be limited to just a few. They have helped reawaken our mission, but this time round we it is our duty as the daughters and sons of the soil to complete the mission.”

Mosibudi Rassie Rasethaba

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