There seems to be some debate about the date of the end of apartheid, the legal edifice of racial segregation and white minority dominance in South Africa. I have seen quite a few sources suggest that it ended in 1990, and others who suggest it ended in 1994. There was even one time where I saw the year 1992 as the year that it ended, although there was no explanation as to how that year could have been it.
Now, I can understand how some people would suggest 1990, although I do not personally subscribe to this belief. It was in 1990 that new President FW DeKlerk admitted that apartheid had been a failure, and then announced that the government was lifting the ban on political organizations that opposed the government and it's policies of apartheid. Also, Nelson Mandela was released. It was clear that change was at hand, and that attempts were being made to initiate something different, a new era. Indeed, 1990 could be said to have marked the end of the white minority government's pursuit of the hard line apartheid policies, which it had been responsible for, up to that point.
Most people view 1994 as the real year that marked the end of apartheid. Yes, it is true that DeKlerk, who was compared with Gorbachev at some points when he was initiating the reform process, did essentially begin to dismantle apartheid in 1990, and many of the discriminatory laws began to get scrapped quickly thereafter. Yet, it was a process that took years, and the negotiations between the ANC and other parties, and the government, were often turbulent, and the ANC leaders often accused the government of stalling tactics, as well as pitting certain groups and tribes against others. Also, there was plenty of opposition, and some places doggedly tried to stick to the harder form of apartheid that had existed (the town of Ventersdorp, for example, reintroduced "petty apartheid" laws that saw the return of segregated entrance ways and bathrooms that had been outlawed in the country in 1986). There were beaches that still segregated well after 1990, by some reports as late as 1992 and 1993. Activists and anti-apartheid leaders urged the West not to lift sanctions, in order to keep applying pressure on the government. And finally, and most tellingly, the white minority government, which had been elected by an exclusively by whites, peaceably gave up the reins of power in favor of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, which had been swept into power by a black majority in an election that finally did away with racial discrimination. That, to me, suggests the true end to apartheid, at least officially.
Of course, inequalities still existed, and progress has certainly not been as quick or thorough as some had hoped. Some critics suggested that what existed in South Africa was "apartheid with a clean conscience", as Indian author and activist Arundati Roy called it.
Yet, most people understood that change takes time, but that undeniable improvements had been made. The old oppression of hard line apartheid was done, and the "new" South Africa was hailed worldwide as a triumph, as a success story.
The shootings last month at Marikana, however, were a little too reminiscent of the past, echoing the infamous shootings that captured the world's attention half a century ago at Sharpeville, which really elevated the tensions and put the racial equality struggle in South Africa in the news on an everyday basis. Back then, the numbers were shocking, and seemed to illustrate the extent of the failure of the policies of strict segregation along racial lines, dictated by a minority white government that promoted white superiority and domination.
The fatalities were not quite as numerous this time in (34 dead, 78 wounded), but they are staggering nonetheless, and much like the shootings at Sharpeville of 1960 (69 dead, 180 injured), they generated worldwide attention and condemnation. But what is shocking this time to many, particularly black South Africans, is that this incident came under a black majority government that is supposed to represent the "Rainbow" nation as a whole, rather than repress one group in favor of another.
Many in the country feel betrayed, and seem to feel that the black governing rulers and business elites, mostly but no longer exclusively whites, are living in the lap of luxury and enjoying a very high standard of living, driving luxurious cars, while the rest of the nation struggles. Many South African homes (particularly in former "Bantu", which is to say black, areas), still do not have basic functions, such as running water, heat, or electricity. While the government has helped millions of homes to get these basic utilities, there is still no shortage of homes that have not received these yet. Progress has been painfully slow.
Add to that, the government's rather lackadaisical response to the whopping numbers of AIDS/HIV victims, which ranks among the highest in Africa, which itself ranks very high in relation to the rest of the world) was very much criticized, often vehemently.
Finally, South Africa has received some negative press regarding it's handling, or perhaps rather it's mishandling (some might suggest manhandling) of illegal immigrants trying to cross into South Africa's borders. There have been images of ruthless police beatings that were compared to captured images of police beatings and brutality during the days of apartheid. Some of the attitudes towards immigrants have been viewed as rather xenophobic, and this time, it's not just whites who hold such viewpoints.
Now, this.
Yes, it's now approaching two decades since the end of apartheid, which perhaps is all the more chocking to so many who had hoped that South Africa was fully beyond many of the excesses of the fairly recent apartheid past.
Evidently not. Some are suggesting that perhaps the country is encountering many of the same problems these days because, as they claim, the lives of poor black workers still means little to those in power. It is clear, nevertheless, that tensions certainly still exist within the nation, and that the government still seems willing to use the police in order to crack down on popular uprisings by the people.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, perhaps?
Here are links to some articles related to what's going on in South Africa recently, including one that serves as another reminder of the apartheid era, as potential foreign investors are scratching their heads at the response to the violent reactions to the strikes, as well as the general air of seeming instability, before getting too involved with the unflattering history of South Africa:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-17/africa/world_africa_south-africa-mine-violence_1_impala-platinum-platinum-mine-mineworkers-and-construction-union
http://news.yahoo.com/south-africa-probes-police-killings-marikana-103910192--finance.html
http://news.yahoo.com/south-africas-dithering-strike-response-spooks-investors-071837343--sector.html
No comments:
Post a Comment