THABO Mbeki deserves every bit of criticism for the unnecessary and costly mistakes he made during his presidency. These mistakes cannot be wished away by overemphasising the context within which they were made. We should, of course, give each other moral discount under appropriate circumstances for making mistakes. Equally, however, we are all responsible agents, who can rightly be blamed for wrongdoing as much as we should be praised for achievement.
This is why I disagree profoundly with an argument by Jonny Steinberg on this page earlier this week, in which he takes many to task for conveniently casting Mbeki as an “ogre” after his political death. This is a rather evocative accusation but one that does not stand up to critical scrutiny.
Steinberg does not claim Mbeki should be exonerated for all his errors. Instead, he engages in the increasingly popular activity of psychobiography writing — “situating” the man or woman within the “context” in which their decisions were taken. In this vein, Steinberg opines that it was always going to be difficult for Mbeki to succeed because “ he inherited a nation whose character and condition few had foreseen”. With this contextual picture of deep developmental and identity challenges richly painted, he argues that “Mbeki’s AIDS denialism is inseparable from this situation”.
The conclusion is that those who criticise Mbeki without due regard for the furniture in the universe within which he acted, “ have made him into an ogre … because (they) wish that what has departed with him is a country ill at ease with itself”. By implication, this says more about our “ wishful thinking ” than about Mbeki deserving the tag “ogre”.
This analysis is not convincing. There is a wide logical gap between understanding the context within which Mbeki acted and understanding the decisions he took. The implicit assumption is that Mbeki may have behaved differently but for these contextual facts. It cannot be a matter of psychological necessity that the facts about the country Mbeki inherited entailed AIDS denialism. No doubt Steinberg does not intend to imply this, but excessive contextualising can lead to this kind of unintended exoneration of political and moral wrongdoing.
Mark Gevisser made a similar mistake in his work on Mbeki. Unlike Steinberg, who looks to the facts of the country to explain Mbeki, Gevisser took the more inviting path of pop-psychologising about Mbeki’s early life. The short man had grown up in exile, without a biological father at hand, negotiating his way into adulthood without regular familial structural support and, lo and behold, could therefore not help himself to later make policy choices that included scepticism about orthodox science. Gevisser, like Steinberg, needs to mind the logical gap. Should we really believe that, but for these biographical facts, Mbeki would have acted differently? Is Govan Mbeki really the ultimate explanation for Thabo’s leadership sins?
Many world leaders had difficult childhoods but we do not routinely absolve them from moral responsibility for their mistakes. This points to a second weakness in Steinberg’s analysis. We are urged to understand Mbeki but understanding, in its turn, is not related to moral and political accountability. We can take a closer look at Mbeki’s AIDS denialism as a case in point.
Pop psychoanalysis may well succeed in offering us an explanation of Mbeki’s attitudes and actions. Assume, for sake of argument, some speculative facts. Imagine he was the victim of racial insults from white British students at Sussex. Imagine he was the victim of a racist hate crime or two, which further embedded a set of acrimonious attitudes towards his uncaring host country. A well- written story that digs up the full set of related facts, such as was attempted by Gevisser, is of great voyeuristic interest. Such a project certainly helps us as citizens to understand our leaders. In Mbeki’s case, we know many of his fellow cadres returned from exile with less racial baggage than him. This means we must look to the unique personal facts of Mbeki’s life to understand him. To that extent, I endorse a project such as Gevisser’s.
But — and this is the crux of the matter — does knowing the life history of Mbeki justify his poor political leadership on AIDS? Does it exonerate him, or even demand we give him some moral discount for bad behaviour? Does it justify Steinberg urging us to footnote the contextual facts about this ogre, including the forgotten silence of others around him? Surely not.
Mbeki is a deeply intelligent person, able to engage in reasoned decision making. He freely chose AIDS denialism. He is therefore morally and politically culpable. We may somewhat understand how he came to make these mistakes but understanding does not displace blame. Too many people died because of his needless self-indulgence, absent father or not. Mbeki earned the ogre tag. It certainly was not thrust upon him.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=89369
Friday, December 11, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Wicked irony in politicians painting themselves saviours
THERE is something abhorrent and disturbingly ironic about the Gauteng legislature’s portfolio committee on health and social development trying to take the moral high ground in answering the tough humanitarian question of what to do with Zimbabwean refugees at the Central Methodist Church (CMC) in downtown Johannesburg.
Removing children from the site seems to be their hasty short-term solution. A longer- term solution is not clear but a recommended closure is not ruled out. What is ironic and abhorrent about all this is the shameless attempt by the politicians to rock up with moral platitudes at hand and, with the help of a bevy of broadcast journalists, send out a message of deep and genuine care about the refugees’ wellbeing. How convenient — as if the crisis happened overnight and they did not or could not have reasonably been aware of it. The truth is that the nature and causes of the unfolding humanitarian crisis in downtown Johannesburg are more complex.
Unsurprisingly, the most appropriate interventions are not so obvious either.
First, Bishop Paul Verryn, who runs the place, is doing what the state is not doing but should be doing — attempting to give practical meaning to the human rights of refugees. Instead of acknowledging that this worsening crisis is symptomatic of a tissue of policy failures on the government’s part, the portfolio committee is trying to get brownie points for wanting to remove the most vulnerable among the refugees, the children.
But what is needed is not the arrangement of a photo opportunity. This, to be sure, will gain the state some political mileage. After all, who in their right mind would want to see children living in such desperately unsafe conditions? Objectively speaking, the unpleasant conditions at the church are not even appropriate for confident, healthy adults capable of looking after themselves, let alone vulnerable children who are exposed to potential sexual abuse and other forms of human rights violations.
However, recognising the nature of a problem is only the first step towards solving it. The second step is to understand the causes of the problem. These are , at least, twofold.
On the one hand, refugees are by definition foreign nationals who have escaped their country of origin because they are threatened in some or other way. The political violence that has been perpetrated in Zimbabwe by President Robert Mugabe for many years now has, as is well known, morphed into an equally, if not worse, protracted economic and social crisis.
The situation in Zimbabwe, despite the Global Political Agreement between the main parties, has not changed materially. In the absence of a safe political environment and one that is socioeconomically attractive by minimal standards of decency in terms of international humanitarian law, there is little reason for refugees to return. It would be imprudent and we would be immoral to compel them to.
On the other hand, government responses fuelled by a mixture of systemic xenophobia and sheer incompetence have worsened the conditions under which refugees survive in spaces such as the rough streets of Johannesburg. The simple fact is that harassment by police (well documented) of refugees living on the streets have forced many of them to seek shelter inside places such as the CMC.
Rightly or wrongly, the CMC responded to the moral dilemma by housing the large numbers of needy people rather than pushing them back into the den of an uncaring, xenophobic police force and local city. And herein lies the deep hypocrisy, abhorrence and irony of the Johnny-come-lately attitude of the politicians: they failed to show responsible political leadership in dealing with the refugee crisis in the first place and now attempt to look like moral saints while people with no political or legal responsibility to care about refugees, such as Verryn, come across inadvertently as unthinking citizens worsening the plight of foreign nationals.
In reality, but for the actions of people such as Verryn and spaces such as the CMC — imperfect though they are — the refugee crisis would be even worse.
So, with two major causes identified — continuing political instability within Zimbabwe and continued ill-considered state responses to refugees within SA’s borders — what are the best possible interventions?
First, the government should acknowledge that it would worsen the plight of the refugees to have them pushed out on to the streets. Doing so is not a feasible short-term intervention.
A feasible short-term intervention would be to make the space more safe, sanitary and secure by assisting the CMC with more effective security and material aid to meet the needs of the refugees while a more long-term solution is sought.
This commitment to not immediately shut the facility or to push people out must include a commitment to remove only children from the site in accordance with a properly drawn- up plan that includes a mechanism for independent oversight.
Second, a more permanent solution should then be sought. This cannot not be done in haste if the solution sought is to be sustainable. It might therefore entail the same politicians hitting the pause button and setting up an investigative committee with relevant stakeholders, who could come up with fact-based recommendations.
Crucially, the habit in social justice work of superimposing solutions on vulnerable groups can be sidestepped by involving the refugees in such a consultative process. This will ensure that their needs are reflected in the solutions that are developed.
Verryn and the CMC have made mistakes. No doubt it is overly ambitious to offer so many people shelter, but this situation did not come about intentionally. It resulted in part from the fact that after the July 3 arrests of refugees on the streets, these vulnerable people naturally felt it safer to seek accommodation within the CMC.
Further, it is possible that the CMC could have been more vigilant and open about potential abuses that such an undesirable space might enable. But to conclude from these facts that a quick visit, some tough words and removal of children to an unknown place will solve the underlying drivers of the crisis is unforgivably short-sighted.
Instead, the church should be helped to improve conditions in the short term and the very same politicians can prove their sincerity beyond that by putting their energies into seeking longer-term solutions through trustworthy consultative processes involving all the stakeholders.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=88963
Removing children from the site seems to be their hasty short-term solution. A longer- term solution is not clear but a recommended closure is not ruled out. What is ironic and abhorrent about all this is the shameless attempt by the politicians to rock up with moral platitudes at hand and, with the help of a bevy of broadcast journalists, send out a message of deep and genuine care about the refugees’ wellbeing. How convenient — as if the crisis happened overnight and they did not or could not have reasonably been aware of it. The truth is that the nature and causes of the unfolding humanitarian crisis in downtown Johannesburg are more complex.
Unsurprisingly, the most appropriate interventions are not so obvious either.
First, Bishop Paul Verryn, who runs the place, is doing what the state is not doing but should be doing — attempting to give practical meaning to the human rights of refugees. Instead of acknowledging that this worsening crisis is symptomatic of a tissue of policy failures on the government’s part, the portfolio committee is trying to get brownie points for wanting to remove the most vulnerable among the refugees, the children.
But what is needed is not the arrangement of a photo opportunity. This, to be sure, will gain the state some political mileage. After all, who in their right mind would want to see children living in such desperately unsafe conditions? Objectively speaking, the unpleasant conditions at the church are not even appropriate for confident, healthy adults capable of looking after themselves, let alone vulnerable children who are exposed to potential sexual abuse and other forms of human rights violations.
However, recognising the nature of a problem is only the first step towards solving it. The second step is to understand the causes of the problem. These are , at least, twofold.
On the one hand, refugees are by definition foreign nationals who have escaped their country of origin because they are threatened in some or other way. The political violence that has been perpetrated in Zimbabwe by President Robert Mugabe for many years now has, as is well known, morphed into an equally, if not worse, protracted economic and social crisis.
The situation in Zimbabwe, despite the Global Political Agreement between the main parties, has not changed materially. In the absence of a safe political environment and one that is socioeconomically attractive by minimal standards of decency in terms of international humanitarian law, there is little reason for refugees to return. It would be imprudent and we would be immoral to compel them to.
On the other hand, government responses fuelled by a mixture of systemic xenophobia and sheer incompetence have worsened the conditions under which refugees survive in spaces such as the rough streets of Johannesburg. The simple fact is that harassment by police (well documented) of refugees living on the streets have forced many of them to seek shelter inside places such as the CMC.
Rightly or wrongly, the CMC responded to the moral dilemma by housing the large numbers of needy people rather than pushing them back into the den of an uncaring, xenophobic police force and local city. And herein lies the deep hypocrisy, abhorrence and irony of the Johnny-come-lately attitude of the politicians: they failed to show responsible political leadership in dealing with the refugee crisis in the first place and now attempt to look like moral saints while people with no political or legal responsibility to care about refugees, such as Verryn, come across inadvertently as unthinking citizens worsening the plight of foreign nationals.
In reality, but for the actions of people such as Verryn and spaces such as the CMC — imperfect though they are — the refugee crisis would be even worse.
So, with two major causes identified — continuing political instability within Zimbabwe and continued ill-considered state responses to refugees within SA’s borders — what are the best possible interventions?
First, the government should acknowledge that it would worsen the plight of the refugees to have them pushed out on to the streets. Doing so is not a feasible short-term intervention.
A feasible short-term intervention would be to make the space more safe, sanitary and secure by assisting the CMC with more effective security and material aid to meet the needs of the refugees while a more long-term solution is sought.
This commitment to not immediately shut the facility or to push people out must include a commitment to remove only children from the site in accordance with a properly drawn- up plan that includes a mechanism for independent oversight.
Second, a more permanent solution should then be sought. This cannot not be done in haste if the solution sought is to be sustainable. It might therefore entail the same politicians hitting the pause button and setting up an investigative committee with relevant stakeholders, who could come up with fact-based recommendations.
Crucially, the habit in social justice work of superimposing solutions on vulnerable groups can be sidestepped by involving the refugees in such a consultative process. This will ensure that their needs are reflected in the solutions that are developed.
Verryn and the CMC have made mistakes. No doubt it is overly ambitious to offer so many people shelter, but this situation did not come about intentionally. It resulted in part from the fact that after the July 3 arrests of refugees on the streets, these vulnerable people naturally felt it safer to seek accommodation within the CMC.
Further, it is possible that the CMC could have been more vigilant and open about potential abuses that such an undesirable space might enable. But to conclude from these facts that a quick visit, some tough words and removal of children to an unknown place will solve the underlying drivers of the crisis is unforgivably short-sighted.
Instead, the church should be helped to improve conditions in the short term and the very same politicians can prove their sincerity beyond that by putting their energies into seeking longer-term solutions through trustworthy consultative processes involving all the stakeholders.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=88963
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
