Pardon?

Today the Pretoria High Court granted an interim interdict preventing our acting president from pardoning over 100 prisoners. The original idea was that, in the spirit of the TRC, people who had been imprisoned for 'political crimes' could apply and be pardoned if the president (and a few others...) considered them worthy. Those who had already been denied amnesty by the TRC could not apply. So from the perpatrators side, it would be those who had not applied to the TRC and yet considered themselves worthy of an application for freedom. Given that many of the apartheid arrests were highly suspect and politically motivated this seemed like a fair idea, or at least one that is worthy of negotiation.

More suspect though is the way this all happens. Perhaps in Mbeki's quick departure from the presidency he managed to take his list of how it should all work out fairly with him in his pocket. Otherwise, I'm not sure if there really was ever a plan. It was supposed to be done in the spirit of the TRC. For those of you not familiar with the process don't expect to learn anything from this one.

The TRC encouraged both victims (survivors) and agents of apartheid violence to come forward, talk through the crime and the effects of it and reach a decision, with various parties, about what the next step would be. But most importantly, it was out in the open, names were heard and faces were seen. The hearings were public, and this publicity was part of the healing process.

It was not a case of blanket freedom for all, some cases of application for amnesty were rejected. In fact, of the over 6000 who applied, only around 850 were successful. The commission emphasized reconciliation and the revalation of 'truths', and 11 years after it handed in its report it is not clear whether the present government's incentives for these particular pardons are similar or discordant.

So what is different this time around?

What seems to be the top of the list for most critics is the unwillingness of the reference group (created by Thabo Mbeki) to reveal the names of those who have applied for pardon. It is not the secrecy of the individuals applying that is resented; rather it is the inability of the victims/survivors of their crimes to have their say or their suffering acknowledged. Current president Motlanthe verbally suggested that each victim/survivor would have the opportunity to have their say. It is not clear how else the import of the convincted criminals crime can be established. How can someone pardon you, when they are not aware (other than the legal documents they have been provided with) what you are asking forgiveness for? More troubling for me is that perhaps these criminals have not asked for forgiveness at all. This process will ensure that they never have to do that.

Who are these new criminals who did not apply for amnesty? What politically based crimes have they committed since the end of apartheid? If a crime is politically motivated, does it make it less criminal? What truths will be revealed by keeping their identities secret? How will this breed reconciliation?

I struggle with the idea of forgiving someone who has not asked for forgiveness. How does one forgive without an apology? Perhaps there is the idea that one can 'see the bigger picture' or 'be the bigger person', but in all this bigness the acknowledgement that something was done that caused harm is lost. So perhaps the idea is to forgive, but not to forget. Are we supposed to remember that something went horribly wrong, to acknowledge social factors in the creation of a criminal and then to focus on reintroducing, relearning, and reintegration?

Or is it still important to look at choices? The choice to commit a crime. The choice to avoid saying 'I'm sorry'.

Our health system - soon to be revamped

The ANC enticed some voters with the idea of a healthcare system that was efficient, free, well managed and useful. It encouraged them to make their marks next to the beaming grin of JZ in order to ensure their place as health South Africans. The healthcare system will get the much needed funds from its revamp from increased taxes on all South Africans (including those on private medical schemes). Sounds fair.

But, in many cases the problem with current service provision, although undeniably related to lack of funds, is also related to poor management of funds. I have mentioned this before with regards to the education sector, but it is apparent that for the new ANC government to make the health inroads it seeks, it must must must do something about its budgeting skills.

Another thing they need to do is get their own members to use the public health system. When interviewed for newspapers and radio many of the staff said that they didn't use it, had had no need for it in the past and/or used private health care. Its not really convincing when ANC staff are not attending state hospitals, clinics or health centres.

But, I suppose a step in the right direction for a sector that is desperately in need of some TLC. Everyone who has used state hospitals or clinics has their own horror story, and perhaps these will become more like urban legends when the budget is reallocated, and health officials are required to use public health care and endure the long queues themselves. I hope so...

'they' only see black and white

On the day of our national elections I made my mark on the ballot paper and felt like perhaps, this election, it might make a difference. I felt happy and proactive, and took a walk home along the beach with my boyfriend. On the way, as I sometimes do, I began to listen to the conversations of the people around us. What did they feel about the elections? Did they share my excitement?

Sadly, the first group I began listening to were talking about the IPL, so that was a bit of a loss. The second group however was more appropriate for my ponderings. It was a middle aged woman talking with someone who appeared to be her daughter. They were talking about who they voted for, and the various parties on offer. The daughter questioned her mother - "who do you think is going to win? the ANC?". Her mother replied, her facial expression showing concern and deep thought. I sped up to hear her. "Well, maybe not the ANC this time, there is COPE now. Not the DA. No, they definitely won't win. You know, 'they' only see black and white." "Probably the ANC then" responded the daughter. "Probably" reiterated her mother.

I wondered how this woman had managed to extricate herself from the 'they'. It was fairly obvious who she was talking about. But how do other women like her come to believe that it is others, not they, who only see in black and white? Is it a case of never having to question the colour of their own skin that makes them appear 'normal' or the starting point for judgement.

Dyer said that whiteness is a 'flesh-coloured' bandaid. It is taken as 'normal' by so many people, that they do not question whether 'flesh-coloured' is really representative at all. When I read this for the first time I thought of those wax crayons that we used to use during primary school. We always called the pinky cream one 'flesh' coloured. When we learnt colours I'm pretty sure that was one of them. How many people felt alienated by this statement? How many teachers didn't question it at all?

So 15 years on race remains important, if not in the way that individuals vote, then in the way others assume they will. Race has changed from the colour of a wax crayon to the colour of a worldview, a culture, a creed. It is now a sticky tab that alerts others to who you are. Why bother asking when you can just use the outer markers to decide?

After speeding up again, this time to avoid eavesdropping, my sense of enjoyment was somewhat deflated. I began to think about what difference I hoped that my vote would make.

Could I have believed that it would change these perceptions, or was I just hoping for a change in government?

zuma promises smooth transition - anybody scared?

Jacob Zuma promises a smooth transition between the current ANC government and the one that will follow after the results of the 2009 election.

Is anyone else afraid?

The status quo is less than desirable and with the pre-election opinion polls showing that the ANC will win majority (Julius Malema believes this could even be a 'three-thirds' majority, somebody please help him) I'm not convinced that we want a smooth transition. He claims the ANC has 'done what is necessary' to secure its mandate, but I'm more concerned that they've done too much or too little.

Done too much 'damage': In the past five years it has begun to become embarrassing to be led by the ANC government. A Mail and Guardian article interviewing members of the Constantia Uitsig public stated that one of the ANC posters in the area had been defaced to read 'Together we can do more damage'. I think they have it right. To begin, the leadership of the ANC has been radically overhauled and they have done little or no leading. Their current leader has been charged with both rape and corruption, and both attempts at charging him have been unsuccessful. Whether this is as a result of his innocence (though to me it appeared quite clearly as a case of cold feet on the part of our justice system) or not, Zuma's attitude and comments on both of these matters were deplorable. In the rape case Zuma made several embarrassing comments, which illustrated both his lack of understanding of the HIV/AIDS crisis in South Africa and his lack of commitment to the constitutional values of gender equality. Furthermore, he allowed his supporters to get away with verbal incitements of violence against his accuser. All this without apology and without the acknowledgement that he had a responsibility to promote support of rape survivors and encourage learning about HIV/AIDS. These duties remain unacknowledged and unfulfilled today, despite our growing culture of violence against women and continued stigma surrounding HIV.

Similarly, it appears that his attitude towards corruption is equally nonchalant. Today on e-news he was questioned about the 'cloud of suspicion' that continues to surround him. His response was (apologies if it is not exactly correct) 'what cloud?I have never seen a cloud surrounding me'. I am hoping, that this was a case of dodging the bullet by attempting to make a joke, rather than his lack of understanding of what the journo was asking. But one can never be sure.

Done too little to ensure people's rights: The same Mail and Guardian article (headline: Zuma promises smooth transtion) sees Zuma stating "we reiterate that we will use our majority responsibly and will not ride roughshod over the rights of the people, or bulldoze other parties into submission." I am not sure where Mr Zuma thinks his responsibilities lie, and I would love to find out.

What about the rights of women?, the taxpayer?, young children? Women continue to be the target of violent crime and South Africa has the highest rape rate in the world, with its victims and survivors spanning all ages, races and ethnicities. How will Zuma, himself 'culturally' unable (read unwilling) to vocalise these women's right to security, ensure that power will be used responsibly. The corruption trial against him cost the South African taxpayers millions of Rands. How will these taxes be better used by someone unable to manage his own money? The past few years have seen our education system return to a sad state of affairs with many matric students having to teach themselves due to lack of staff and poor spending on the part of provincial governments. How will Zuma encourage his government to better spend?

I am aware that a party is more than its leader. And I am aware that a government is made up of more than one party. But I am afraid for South Africa on the cusp of elections. I am not encouraged by the clouds surrounding Zuma, and I am more concerned that his vision is so tinted by his own power that he cannot see them himself.

picture: www.news24.com
mail and guardian article accessbile from www.mg.co.za