When People Trash Streets and Burn Clinics

The events of the last few days in South Africa raise a number of major questions. The nation has witnessed "service delivery" protests as well as strikes (industrial action) by workers from various categories and trades. The service delivery protests are basically uprisings, demonstrations and marches by residents (usually in the relatively poor communities) demanding that the local (and national) government provide them with basic services e.g. housing, clean water, electricity etc. These protests normally include allegations of corruption against the local council leaders e.g. mayors, councillors, municipal managers etc.

These protests are not new in South Africa and even the violence that often accompanies them is not new. The recent protest must however be seen in the light of a new South African government that was elected on April 22, 2009. This is the Jacob Zuma government, which came into power after a bitter internal rivalry within the ANC, leading to the humiliation of Thabo Mbeki (who lost the battle for the ANC presidency) in Dec 2007 at the Polokwane Conference. Thabo Mbeki was subsequently booted out of the Union Building (office of the national president) by the ANC National Executive Council in September 2008.

The Zuma wing of the ANC (together with COSATU and SACP) was seen by the poor segment of the society as the saviour and Zuma was considered to be a man who cares about the poor, the needy, the general workers and marginalised in society. Therefore the expectations were and are still very high.

During the period of the ANC in-fighting (Mbeki-Zuma) an impression was created that Thabo Mbeki did not care for the poor (but only for the middle class and rich) and Zuma was "pro-poor". This impression (rightly or wrongly) is fuelling some of the huge expectations in society.
Traditionally a new government is given 100 days to settle down, but the Zuma government didn't even get these 100 days before the protests started.

However there is a worrying factor about the recent protest, and that is the violence, mayhem and hooliganism that accompany them. It is almost as if the South African society can not demonstrate without resorting to some sort of violence. Some people argue, it comes from the apartheid past where people learnt to be violent because the environment (apartheid regime) was violent. Almost like a child who grows up in a home where violence is common and then becomes a violent criminal later in life i.e. socialization.

Some of the service delivery protesters have burnt down public buildings such as council offices, clinics, schools etc. The municipal workers striking in the cities have damaged sign posts in the streets, turned street bins upside down (trashing the streets) and intimidated innocent by standers, blocked streets and threatened car drivers etc.

And this raises a question about whether people have a general understanding of who owns the property they are destroying. It is very common to hear people say..this clinic or school or road is owned by the government. Many people never go further and ask themselves "who is the government?" It is indeed true that this concept of "government" being something outside and apart from us, is often created by government leaders (at all levels) and government employees and political leaders behaving as if they own "government property." There is a perception is society that leaders have their hands on the state purse and deep their hands into it at will to get whatever they want for whatever they want, while the rest of us sit there and watch in envy.

A friend of mine asked her house helper (so-called "maid") in Cape Town a very interesting question i.e. "where does government get money to pay teachers and nurses?" The maid said that government has a bank somewhere where they can go to get money. When there is no more money there, they just make/print some more. The answer might appear funny to some people, but given that some governments in the world (recently Zimbabwe) printed money to pay for their expenses, this might be a realistic idea in someones mind. Given that the South African government does not just print money at will (I hope it doesn't), the answer she gave highlights a big challenge society has.

Of the 46 million citizens in South Africa about 5.3 million are registered income tax payers. Many of these are at the lower end of the tax scale. Of course the state also makes money from VAT, company tax, duty and other forms of taxation and investments. Then about 13 million people receive some government grant (financial support) in some form or another. Then there is another huge section which receives services (e.g. health, education etc.) either for free or for very little money because they have a low level of or no income at all. Al these factors mean that there is a relatively large section of the population that has a limited understanding on how the modern state works.

Of course there is a lot of corruption, wastage and inefficiencies in government, but fact of the matter is that government in general can only give what it has.
What then can people expect from government? Many things, but it would be of great help if in protesting, people realise that someone somewhere pays for the services they rightly and justifiably demand. It would also be helpful if the protests do not destroy public facilities and infrastructure which is paid for by everybody (including the protesters).

It doesn't make sense to burn a clinic down because the mayor is accused of corruption.
It doesn't make sense to trash the city which you yourself cleaned last week.
It doesn't make sense for politicians to use hooliganism to gain support as they ascend to power and think that people who elected them won't use the same tactics against them.
It doesn't make sense to use violent rhetoric to make a point and believe people will not believe that violence should be used to solve problems.

There is a huge amount of education that needs to take place to make people aware that there is no such thing a government school or clinic or park.
Government is the people who pay taxes for the running of the state.
Public institutions and infrastructure belongs to the people and therefore they should maintain and protect them.

I always wonder what people are thinking when then throw litter, cans, bottles, plastics, cigarettes on the ground, on the street, outside through a taxi or bus windows.

Who do they think will come clean the mess? Government of course.

The Michael Jackson Legacy

It has now been a couple of days since the Michael Jackson memorial service at the Staples Center in LA and the world is still not in agreement on what his legacy would be. Some people believe history will record that MJ was a pervert, a child molester, a deranged lunatic and an African American who was so embarrassed about being black that he did everything money could buy to have skin surgery performed on him so that he could look white. They even argue that his three children (Michael Joseph Jr, Paris Michael Katherine and Prince Michael II) do not look like children between a black man and a white woman. They all have long hair and look so white that it is "obvious" that he is not the father. They believe he distastes the notion of the black race that he used white sperm donors to have white children born for him.

Of course the allegations that he molested young boys who spent nights at his ranch and his "eccentric" behaviours in public have led many to believe that Michael was indeed a deranged man who needed psychiatric help. Who would forget the pictures of MJ dangling a baby from the window of the Adlon Hotel room window (Berlin, Germany) in November 2002.
It was however very clear from the sentiments expressed by the many speakers at MJ's memorial service, that his friends want him to be remembered for other things besides the negatives. They highlighted his great humanitarian and charity activities. Of course they also highlighted the fact that he was probably the greatest musical entertainer that ever lived up to this day.

It is possible that the world might never agree on the final verdict, but one thing is very clear i.e. Michael Jackson and his music transcended many boundaries, broke down barriers and appealed to the world like no other musician had done before.

Over the 40 years of his musical life, MJ appealed to various cultures and managed to bring people of different backgrounds, political persuasions and geographical locations together.

In the middle of the cold war, young people from communist Russia, East Germany, Romania or Poland danced to Michael Jackson songs like their age mates in the USA, UK or Japan. Somehow this young black musician from the capitalist USA spoke the language young people growing up in societies that indoctrinated them to consider the west as evil, could understand.

MJ appealed to young people in the Moslem world. Although Islam considered and taught that the western culture was decadent and MJ was a personification of that immorality, Michael was still adored (sometimes secretly) by young people in the Islam world.

Michael Jackson appealed to young people in the middle of the African continent. Michael Jackson and Coca-Cola were the two USA products that penetrated into the most remote parts of Africa like nothing else could do.

All around the world, at high school parties (especially in the 1980s and 1990s) the music of MJ could be heard. Whether in China or Chad or Chile. Whether in Berlin or Bogota or Bamako.

Given the controversy around the cause of his death and the issues around his estate (there will be a protracted court case) it will be a while until the final chapter of his life is written down. It looks like MJ is a controversial in death as he was in life.

But I hope that when everything is said and done, there will be at least a line which says that Michael Jackson was a musician who managed to do what world leaders failed to do, namely appeal to people across cultures, boundaries and ideologies.