Allen in South Africa: Semantics Can Dictate the Future of South Africa
Last Updated on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 22:12 Written by Allen Linton Tuesday, 19 January 2010 22:08
But I Have My Thoughts on That
Last night we attended a lecture given by Judge Dennis Davis regarding the state of the South African judiciary, the constitution courts, socioracial/socioeconomic problems, and the next 15 years of South African legal systems. Very insightful but one thing stuck out to me that really dictates the success or failure of South African legal equality: the concept of non-racialism. Judge Davis constantly mentioned the goal of bringing South Africa into an era of non-racialism throughout all aspects of life (though he highlighted disputes over property rights). This concept of non-racialism originated from the Freedom Charter in 1956 and unfortunately the idea seems to define non-racialism as being racially blind leading to a South Africa for South Africans.
Although this is ideal for societal development, the racially blind notion of non-racialism seems to prohibit the development of solutions for situations inherently tied to race relations. With racial categories artificially created came the side effects of legitimized cultures, histories, and legacies tied to racial groups. (The point is made that Mark Sanchez represents so much in terms of success for the Hispanic community but does not get the same acclaim as successful black quarterbacks. Can you name another Hispanic quarterback? I did not think so.) Racial divisions dictated the success and failure for generations of racial groups but to create a society that suddenly eliminates those defining characteristics leads to an initiative to bridge the gap between the groups that have and the groups that have not. For Judge Davis (and me for that matter), non-racialism means creating TRUE equality and leveling the playing field for TRUE possibilities of success regardless of race. It means acknowledging the implication of past actions on the grounds of race and ensuring that the same measures will not be used to betray the trust in the legitimate government that acts for ALL people. It does not mean to ignore the categories that define individuals leaving questions of who to help and why help one versus the other. Thinking outside the box, Andy brought up a great questions: “What happens to affirmative action if no racial groups exist and everyone assumes the general title of South African?” The problem becomes alternative classifications mechanisms, i.e. the poor, the uneducated, the legally dominated, tend to correlate directly to…RACE! That is what happens why you leave a system of Apartheid government where racial classifications led to the destruction of notions of success. The situation gets more complex when race, which DOES translate to culture for many, interacts with legal preceding.
The Constitution of South Africa provides lots of wiggle room regarding the balance of individuality, the goal of the collective state, and respect for the rich amount of cultures and customs within its people. With the Bill of Rights being the most important set of legislation, specific chapters of the Constitution allow the culture to supersede individual rights. Our professor explained that under particular circumstances (Chapter 35 of the South African Constitution) cultural practices can override adherence to the Bill of Rights with the following example:
A woman is confined to a hut and not allowed to go outside into public - and by confined I mean physically placed into the hut with guards keeping her inside the hut. She believes her rights are violated because she cannot speak to anyone, she cannot go anywhere and can accurately be described as being held prisoner. The case is brought to a court where the tribal leader does not deny the fact that this has happened, but suggests that this was democratically voted upon by the tribal leadership and defends his actions as a means of self-defense. Showing why I do not want to be a lawyer, the tribes man explains that the woman is in morning about the death of someone and that a woman in morning will pollute the air. He argues that if she is allowed to morn in public, then she will infect the tribe as AIDS has affected the African continent, and leading to the deaths of many children. (This story has been shortened but those details stood out and needed to be included.) He explains it’s the same idea as someone in the US walking into your house, putting a gun to your head, and you shooting the person before he/she shoots you. Under the self-defense idea, you would not go to jail. Despite the circumstances, there is an element of probability that the person with the gun to your head would not shoot you, but you acted rationally and defended yourself regardless. (The same cannot be said about the off duty police officer who shot and killed a dog last weekend because she felt threatened by it. -Insert inappropriate Michael Vick joke here-…I know he is out the dog pound and a straight shooter now…oops.) He suggested the same type of self defense because his culture suggested that the outcome of letting a woman in morning into the streets would be death to innocents. Furthermore, he also highlighted that the woman choose to be apart of their culture and community and was not forced into staying before this incident (It’s like my brother. He likes the rules and plays the videogame when he wins but if he loses he raises hell, turns off the game and is gone.) The tribes man uses rational argument to pled his case successfully because culture holds substantial meaning among the legal system. Besides being an interesting story, what does this have to do with non-racialism?
The fact is that the wiggle room built into the Constitution allows for case by case basis of judgment without a true conception of limits and restrictions. Non-racialism, admitted Judge Davis, is an obscure term that no one is really sure about the meaning or conceptualization. So, we have a government and judiciary set out to accomplish something they cannot envisage but knows it is right. I commend their efforts thus far, but the concept of the term non-racialism is of grave importance to accomplishing any of their goals for equality among all South Africans. If they seek to build a racially blind society, then the efforts to repair racially influenced fissures become infinitely more challenging on the verge of impossibility. If they seek to build a society of equal opportunity, equal resources, and recognition of continued racial strife then perhaps in 15 years we will commend the judiciary and government on a job well done. The similar situation exists in America, most notably defined by the high incarceration rates of young black males, and the inherent taboo of racial discourse in society (I quipped that between religion and racism one can end just about every discussion in America). At least in South Africa the nation is not afraid to confront issues of racism and recognition of a racialized society; perhaps this is a lesson we can adapt in America when conceiving of real solutions to real problems.
Note: I am trying to post pictures but that is exceedingly difficult around the land of weak internet so I will do my best to upload them as soon as possible.
Final note: Take some time and read about the “Hit for Haiti” charity tennis match created by (you guessed it) Roger Federer. It was impromptu, lacked sponsorship, and raised money for the Haitian people. It’s really cool to see sports (often times underappreciated in this regard) bridging the gap between tragedy and recovery.
ALL II
The Constitution of South Africa provides lots of wiggle room regarding the balance of individuality, the goal of the collective state, and respect for the rich amount of cultures and customs within its people. With the Bill of Rights being the most important set of legislation, specific chapters of the Constitution allow the culture to supersede individual rights. Our professor explained that under particular circumstances (Chapter 35 of the South African Constitution) cultural practices can override adherence to the Bill of Rights with the following example:
A woman is confined to a hut and not allowed to go outside into public - and by confined I mean physically placed into the hut with guards keeping her inside the hut. She believes her rights are violated because she cannot speak to anyone, she cannot go anywhere and can accurately be described as being held prisoner. The case is brought to a court where the tribal leader does not deny the fact that this has happened, but suggests that this was democratically voted upon by the tribal leadership and defends his actions as a means of self-defense. Showing why I do not want to be a lawyer, the tribes man explains that the woman is in morning about the death of someone and that a woman in morning will pollute the air. He argues that if she is allowed to morn in public, then she will infect the tribe as AIDS has affected the African continent, and leading to the deaths of many children. (This story has been shortened but those details stood out and needed to be included.) He explains it’s the same idea as someone in the US walking into your house, putting a gun to your head, and you shooting the person before he/she shoots you. Under the self-defense idea, you would not go to jail. Despite the circumstances, there is an element of probability that the person with the gun to your head would not shoot you, but you acted rationally and defended yourself regardless. (The same cannot be said about the off duty police officer who shot and killed a dog last weekend because she felt threatened by it. -Insert inappropriate Michael Vick joke here-…I know he is out the dog pound and a straight shooter now…oops.) He suggested the same type of self defense because his culture suggested that the outcome of letting a woman in morning into the streets would be death to innocents. Furthermore, he also highlighted that the woman choose to be apart of their culture and community and was not forced into staying before this incident (It’s like my brother. He likes the rules and plays the videogame when he wins but if he loses he raises hell, turns off the game and is gone.) The tribes man uses rational argument to pled his case successfully because culture holds substantial meaning among the legal system. Besides being an interesting story, what does this have to do with non-racialism?
The fact is that the wiggle room built into the Constitution allows for case by case basis of judgment without a true conception of limits and restrictions. Non-racialism, admitted Judge Davis, is an obscure term that no one is really sure about the meaning or conceptualization. So, we have a government and judiciary set out to accomplish something they cannot envisage but knows it is right. I commend their efforts thus far, but the concept of the term non-racialism is of grave importance to accomplishing any of their goals for equality among all South Africans. If they seek to build a racially blind society, then the efforts to repair racially influenced fissures become infinitely more challenging on the verge of impossibility. If they seek to build a society of equal opportunity, equal resources, and recognition of continued racial strife then perhaps in 15 years we will commend the judiciary and government on a job well done. The similar situation exists in America, most notably defined by the high incarceration rates of young black males, and the inherent taboo of racial discourse in society (I quipped that between religion and racism one can end just about every discussion in America). At least in South Africa the nation is not afraid to confront issues of racism and recognition of a racialized society; perhaps this is a lesson we can adapt in America when conceiving of real solutions to real problems.
Note: I am trying to post pictures but that is exceedingly difficult around the land of weak internet so I will do my best to upload them as soon as possible.
Final note: Take some time and read about the “Hit for Haiti” charity tennis match created by (you guessed it) Roger Federer. It was impromptu, lacked sponsorship, and raised money for the Haitian people. It’s really cool to see sports (often times underappreciated in this regard) bridging the gap between tragedy and recovery.
ALL II
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|