on Transformation and Reconciliation: Some analysis and Perspective

How far can transformation and reconciliation go? For some time now as South Africans we have been obsessed with this idea of transformation, and to a certain extent also the idea of reconciliation without really engaging on the practical implications of both ideas. The sad part of our obsession is that we have been talking at each other rather than with one another on these ideas.

The tendency has been to ridicule to say the least, those amongst our midst who ask critical and yet necessary questions as to why, for example we need to change names of institutions like Mangosuthu Technikon and Rhodes university. To some in the name of transformation these have been useless questions. The problem with this approach is amongst others, the fact that we are yet to agree on what we really mean by transformation. Put in another way, we are yet to be told on what transformation is and what it is not.

This is important because to my mind transformation at least as a word would encompass some sort of a change not only in appearance, but also in form; nature and character of whatever it is that is said to be transformed. I argue then that as South Africans we have tended to change the appearance of things, by either renaming them or by simply changing the personnel therein and thereof. The shortcoming of this is that we have forgotten completely the form; nature and character of these things. And more sadly in the process the reconciliation agenda has been swept aside. South Africans have we reached a place in our existence where we feel that we have reconciled and arisen above the race bar in particular? I don't think so, and I feel that if we continue to rename things like we are doing in the name of transformation we are not only narrowly defining our transformation agenda, but we are also execerbating divisions in our societies.

Reconciliation, or at least the spirit of reconciliation as embodied in the TRC, and ,most importantly on the founding provisions of our constitution expressly warn us against the evils uncontrolled anger and vengeance. We cannot be driven by the need to get equal and masquerade that as transformation. It is clear that upon close scrutiny most of the renamings of late have been, to my mind, inspired by the need to get rid of certain historical facts. I am not saying we should not rename places and institutions that disgrace the human dignity of our people but what I am saying is that history cannot only be told from one side - the position of the victor. If that is done then we are not telling history but some sort of a misplaced propaganda and/or ideology.

If we accept that Mangosuthu and Rhodes for example were bad people in history then we must let the historical archives speak for themsleves in that regard. Let the names of the institutions that are named after them remain so to remind us of that historical data. Is it not true that to know where we are going we must know where we come from? Rather instead of changing the appearance of these institutions let us focus our energies on changing their nature, form and character.

What good does it do to rename Rhodes to something else when the culture and practice of the institution stays the same. Is that not tantamount to appointing a black vice-chancelor to lead a totally white untransformed council, senate and deans of faculties? When then that VC is frustrated we are quick to say so and so has failed the transformation agenda. Nobody ever ponders the questions of the working arrangements that VC was confronted with. Is then this not politics without principles to use a Gandhi classification?

Our transformation agenda should not only be about power changing hands where it is synonymous with blacks taking over everything, but it must also be about the internal arrangements of whatever it is that is being transformed. In other words, we ought to have a holistic transformation agenda rather than the one we have now that focuses on the exterior and completely ignores the interior. If we keep on doing things in this manner then we are doing a dis-service to transformation as an ideal and effectively we do not have transformation but a process of reformation.

Now a process of reformation has negative consequences because it alienates others on a practical psychological level. And to add salt to injury it forever reminds the alienated groups of their alienation. Just how far can we reasonably strech transformation and reconciliation whilst guarding against the possibility of being pushed towards a vengeful agenda of reformation?

South Africa lets engage.



Thulani Nkosi
Chairperson, UBPA