Posts Tagged South Africa
Are car guards a form of charity?
In South Africa we have an interesting phenomenon: car guards. These are people who stand in parking lots and parking spaces generally, typically wearing a neon vest, “looking after” your car. Typically they receive (at least part of their) income as donations from the motorists whose cars they have kept safe. I have encountered car guards for years and I realised I actually know little about them.
I suspect international readers may find this concept hard to understand and I refer you to this comical video by a South African comedy duo. Despite the comedic element, the portrayal is fairly accurate. As in this video, car guards are almost always male, but unlike in the video, they are also almost always black.
Many car guards are hired by the owners of the premises. I am not sure of how much protection they actually provide. I have never heard of a car guard actually stopping or attempting to stop a theft. That does not mean, however, that car guards do not prevent attempts – like visible policing they may make thefts less likely. For the most part, however, their role seems to be to help motorists get into and out of tricky parking spots. These men are not security guards – they are not armed and I suspect most are not trained to deal with proper criminals.
Many “car guards”, I suspect, take advantage of the fact that anyone with a neon vest has a legitimate claim as guarding any otherwise unattended parking facility. Car guards have become so ingrained in daily lives that we hardly even think about paying them. Much like providing a tip to a waitron, it has been customary and we feel guilty if we shirk this duty.
In so far as car guards are not actually providing a useful service, they effectively represent a form of charity, a means of creating employment not unlike asking people to dig holes and fill them up again. This is probably not entirely fair and we must consider that South Africa sits with a glut of unskilled labour that is not being put to productive use (our youth unemployment rate is notoriously high). Car guards represent one way of giving an income, one that is earned, at least in some measure, to a portion of our unskilled labour force.
The question of whether this is good or bad is moot. It is certainly better than having a larger supply of beggars. The fact that this country has no better way of employing much of its population is the problem. It’s also probably true that the South African public has come to expect car guards: we want them there.
I leave you with some questions. If you have something to say about any of them, please leave a comment:
- Do you know of any research on whether car guards do reduce car thefts?
- Do you feel safer with a car guard nearby?
- Have you heard of a car guard preventing a theft?
- How do you feel about paying car guards?
- Do you think there are more “productive” means employing a larger part of our population?
Queer worship in Cape Town
Posted by johandp in Christianity, thoughts on 28/04/2014
It is a sad fact that homosexuals do not feel welcome in most churches. But it is encouraging to know that Christians have been at the forefront of the marriage inequality movement for a long time. The Metropolitan Community Church, for instance, was founded as early as 1968 and has been campaigning for marriage equality ever since. It has also no doubt contributed to the emerging “queer theology” that seeks to legitimise their stance. I attended a service of the Good Hope MCC in Cape Town last Sunday. It was Freedom Day, the birthday of SA’s democracy.
The Good Hope MCC meets in a historical Church building on Green Market Square in Cape Town and they hung a huge yellow banner declaring that all “queers” are welcome. The pastor was a slight woman who not only preached, but also sang while playing the guitar, straight from the pulpit. The toilets were designated unisex. I have the memory of there being rainbow decorations everywhere, but this may be more of an impression than actual fact. The message, in any case, was very clear: you are welcome.
But it was also very clear that this message was not directed toward me. I’m a heterosexual male, perfectly welcome in a traditional church. No, this message was directed to the LGBT community. Indeed, I felt like possibly only one of two heterosexuals there (the other being a friend I had brought along). This was also an impression, not an established fact. The MCC church is there for LGBT people. Every announcement and virtually every statement made was geared toward them.
And why should the MCC not focus on LGBT? In virtually every other church they are either not mentioned at all, or they are informed that they are living in sin. The plight of LGBT people in the new South Africa is still acute. There are, for instance, Lesbians being murdered or correctively raped in some communities. Would other churches take as active a stance to stop this?
The Good Hope MCC church is perhaps the only place that LGBT people in Cape Town can connect with a community of believers without judgement. And they do so alone. Shouldn’t heterosexuals and LGBT people be able to worship together? Is it not deplorable that in 20 years into South Africa’s democracy, the church is in a kind of apartheid, heterosexuals here, LGBT people there? Perhaps, in another twenty years, it will seem simply absurd.
When Madiba dies
Mandela’s birthday is coming up on Thursday and people are being asked to donate their time to help others. Mandela is still in ill-health, and it seems his death may be announced at any moment, despite claims that he is recovering. With the world waiting for Madiba’s death, some here in the Netherlands have asked me what would happen then. Some (white) people seem to think that Mandela being alive is the only thing stopping the blacks from forcibly disowning or killing the whites in South Africa. This is nonsense of course.
Here is what I think will happen:
The entire country will mourn. Blacks, whites, coloureds, Indians, Chinese, everyone, will mourn. We will be one race: black with mourning. For a very long time we will be a country in despair. Our GDP may take an appreciable hit.
But we will not erupt in chaos. We will be united in our morning, as we are united in our admiration for this great man. We will come together as we have not come together since 1994 because to do otherwise would dishonour the memory of this man. Mandela may die, but his ideals will outlive him. They will but gather strength from his death.
It will feel as if the entire country is attempting to attend his funeral (because the entire country will attempt to attend his funeral, or at least get in the vicinity). There will be tears and wails. There will be television broadcasts. Condolences will stream in from across the globe.
Mandela will be elevated to something like Sainthood. No bad thing uttered of him will be thought true. This I find a pity. For Mandela is a human being who has made mistakes. He is an example for us all, but we need to recognise his humanity. In time history will remember him as a man with a story that started long before his release from prison.
Some (read: the ANC and the Mandela family) will try to use his memory for their personal gain. I am not worried about them. They are but bit players in the grand story of the new South Africa that started with the first step Mandela took out of the Victor Verster Prison in 1990. They are overshadowed by greater ideals, by the larger strides that South Africa has made and will continue to make in spite of them. Mandela is not for the Mandelas. He is a symbol to the whole world. He will be a symbol long after he dies and long after bickering politicians and grandchildren are forgotten.
When our mourning has ceased, there will be no great announcement. There will not be a massacre or a festival. We will simply continue building our imperfect but ever hopeful country.
Race and education
My alma mater, the University of Cape Town (UCT) has been in a (seemingly endless, but necessary) debate regarding race-based admissions. Currently it gives preference to black students. That the debate has gone on so long shows just how important the symbolism of race is in South African politics.
The alternative to race-based admission is to use things such as how highly educated a student’s parents are, the quality of the school they attended, and income. Ultimately I do not think this will not markedly affect the pool of people eligible for admission and who get given preference. Black students are the most likely to meet these criteria.
But it changes the symbolism of the process completely. It no longer assumes every black kid is previously disadvantaged (there is a new generation of young blacks whose parents are middle-class and this middle class is growing rapidly) and that every white kid is previously advantaged. Coloureds, who have complained that they are underrepresented in “transformation” may now stand an equal chance. It levels the playing field and I think it has to be done. It is a symbolic step in the direction of a South Africa in which all men (and women) are equal without sacrificing the need to redress the social injustices of the past.
I have stated in previous blog posts my natural aversion to affirmative action. I have, however, no aversion to university admissions policies that take into account more than just the grades of an applicant. Many students with a lot of potential have grades lists that look terrible merely because they had a substandard education for instance. Brazil found with its affirmative action candidates (here the policy also appears to be race-based), called cotistas, that they did not fare much worse than the other students, and in fact caught up quite quickly. This was for two reasons: they worked harder and they had a greater ability than show by their entrance grades because they were not coached for the entrance exams. We want such students in our universities.
Apparently affirmative action was also quite successful in American universities and this has been stated as a reason for continuing race-based admission. That is a fair point, but the redress of social disadvantage is inherently ideological and it seems to me that using clearer indicators of disadvantage fits better ideologically and is likely to give the same (or even a better) result. I do not know if there is research on this. If there is not, then I think we should try it.
I have no idea if South African affirmative action candidates fare well at university. (If you know, please leave a comment). I do know that it is unfair to keep them out. But I think it is counterproductive to force the demographics of the university to reflect the demographics of the country one for one. Find the students with ability, take into account their background (not their race), and give them the opportunity they deserve. The demographic change will come.
South Africa’s attitude problem
I have always said that South Africa needs effective education in order to escape its poverty trap. There is, however, something else that is perhaps even more important and far harder to obtain, a change in culture or attitude.
If you look at the unrest, the constant strikes (often accompanied with violence), the unceasing corruption, you get the impression that there is a culture of entitlement. “We were harmed by the legacy of Apartheid and therefore we deserve [insert demands here]”. I fear this is only hampering our progress.
If we are to grow, to escape the bonds of apartheid, we need people who not only demand opportunities but create those opportunities. We need people willing to work to create their futures rather than just demanding it from the government or their employer. This is a part of the problem that I have with affirmative action. It enforces the entitlement culture. It says “you deserve the opportunity and we don’t care what you do with it.”
With youth unemployment in South Africa over 50% there is another negative effect on attitudes: despair and hopelessness. The belief that there is no way to improve your circumstances can lead to two things: complete inaction or unbelievable anger. We probably have both in South Africa, but it is the latter that makes news headlines.
Thus we need firstly to give people hope. Hope is the motivation. Then we need to make sure they know that their lives are in their hands – it is their responsibility to improve their lot. But how do we do that? Perhaps the answer still lies in our education system, in perhaps the most influential role models besides parents that children ever encounter, in teachers
We live in Elysium
It occurred to me after seeing the trailer for Elysium, the new film by the director of District 9, that real life is perhaps not so very different from the situation described there. District 9 portrayed South Africa past. Elysium portrays the world as it is now.
The setting is so ridiculous, so Sci-Fi that it doesn’t immediately register. But the premise is essentially that the divide between rich and poor is enormous and unfair and that the poor are being hindered from advancing.
I know little of immigration laws, but it seems to me that it is quite hard to move from one impoverished country to another more prosperous one. And even then it is hard to be treated on equal terms with the rest of the country’s inhabitants. Much harder still (practically impossible in fact) is breaking out of the poverty of generations of inadequate education, which you will inevitably pass on to your children.
In the Elysium trailer there is some machine that removes minor ailments. It seems unbelievable that those in Elysium should have access to this, but the people on Earth are dying (presumably in pollution, with lack of food, medical treatment, etc.). If you are a middle-class South African or a resident of a first world country, you might not realise how ridiculously unequal the real world actually is. I had my teeth straightened with braces at a great cost to my medical aid when I was in my teens. It now seems to me almost monstrous to have been able to get such a cosmetic procedure when in my own country there are people with no access to clean water. How different is this from the futuristic machine in Elysium?
Of course, I think this is the point the movie is trying to make. We live in a world divided. If you get born into the right home in the right country or the right area you grow up with privilege. But a very large portion of this world is denied even the most basic human needs. We may not have separated ourselves from these people with as much clarity as putting ourselves in a space station, but we are separated from them nonetheless. A part of this separation is geographical (country and neighbourhood), a part of it is in structures (barb-wire fences around our homes), but mostly it is in our minds. We do not just absolve ourselves of guilt: we hardly recognise the need to do so.
I am not going to advocate giving away masses of wealth to the poor or to the poorest nations. Charity is not the solution. But I think we need to recognise we do not live in a cosy world and we need to figure out what to do about that. I hardly have any answers.
The abuse of Mandela’s legacy
Sometimes I think there is only one thing that all politicians in South Africa agree on: the semi-divinity of Nelson Mandela. He and possibly Desmond Tutu (who headed up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission) are perhaps the only ANC political figure whose records are not plagued by rumours of corruption, incompetence or ignorance.
I do not believe Mandela is a saint. Mandela headed up the ANC for five years after our first free and fair elections and he was the symbol of peace that kept blood from being spilt. Yet the party under him has never experienced a moment without accusations of corruption. I sometimes wonder if he could have done more to make the ANC the political party that South Africa deserves.
Now he is an old, ailing man and it is too late. Rather, his legacy is being abused. Firstly, by his own party who can pretty much count on the people’s votes as long as they are Mandela’s party and then do whatever they like. Secondly, it seems by his own family, who appear to be making a lot of money from his legacy (that said, much of this money may well be quite legal, if not necessarily tastefully acquired). Many more, for good or for ill, invoke the spirit of Mandela. He is a sort of deity: his blessing whether real or implied can make an endeavour succeed.
The SABC (a public broadcaster, i.e. politically influenced) released footage of Mandela after he had been in hospital for some time. In what seems like an almost unbelievable feat of cognitive dissonance, Jacob Zuma and others proclaim Mandela’s health while Mandela himself seems apathetic and, frankly, nearing death. I have no idea what the ANC was trying to achieve, but it seems to me they only managed to enforce the idea that Mandela and his legacy are nothing more but pawns for their games.
Mandela was and is, I believe, loyal to the ANC. He would not turn his back on his party. But his party has abused his loyalty. And they will continue to do so after he is gone. Mandela’s legacy will live on when he dies, in fact, it is likely to become even stronger. And with death he will truly seem Saint-like. Mandela’s legacy is for everyone. Like Ghandi his words and actions transcend time and circumstance and politics. It is a powerful thing.
I wish the power of this legacy may be free from political abuse, but until the ANC is dissolved, I fear this will never truly be the case.
Black diamond power
[I must apologise for not blogging in some time. Life caught up with me.]
I read a very interesting statistic this week. The black middle class in SA, known as ‘Black Diamonds’ has outgrown the white middle-class in numbers and spending power.
The 4 million black diamonds in South Africa are still only a small portion of the black population. But their presence represents a huge change. They have the power to change, not instantly, what has always been a white English (and to some extent Afrikaans) dominated culture and economy into one for blacks. However, the culture of the black diamonds has probably become more westernized than anything else. They will change things, but it will suit their culture, a new urban black culture.
I wonder where these black diamonds come from. 20% of them are in civil service, the product of a large government. This is not where we want them to come from. A large number are probably the products of Black Economic Empowerment, a system that I have never been fond of.
However, this must be said. These black diamonds are leaving behind a new generation of educated blacks – their children. They have created a foothold for black people in the South African economy. It’s a foothold only for a small number of people. Their presence has exacerbated rather than lessened income inequality in South Africa. They have entered the domain of white prosperity rather than bringing that prosperity to South Africa. But if they spread their wealth and their influence beyond their immediate families – in the way that Africans are apt to do – they could reach a far greater number of black people. If the presence of these black diamonds could help black children outside their immediate families to obtain better education or training that could make a difference.
Of course in much the same way BEE gave opportunities to blacks instead of “more deserving” whites, these black diamonds could do the same for their friends and family. This would not be so great for the economy and brings a number of other problems. But it does accentuate the trickle-down process I described.
People will help their own. Place black people in a position to be able to substantially help their own and they will. This is perhaps the one success of BEE. But I wonder if it is enough. A small black foothold we have. But no matter what we do in the short term it is going to take a massive country-wide improvement in access to education to bring the prosperity we need.
The right to beg: a third world perspective
(Disclaimer: this was written based entirely on my own personal experience. If I have any facts wrong, please let me know. )
I recently read in a Dutch newspaper that there are 253 registered beggars in Amsterdam. Several things about this statement shocked me.
253 is ridiculously little. I don’t think any city in South Africa has so few beggars, even as a percentage of population (though I have not checked the figures –there may not even be any figures).
The fact that beggars are registered and that begging is in fact outlawed (except, I suppose for these registered beggars) seems almost monstrous when you come from a country where almost every traffic light in every major city has children below the age of ten asking you for some coins. To deny so many people this form of income because it is a nuisance is something I cannot even countenance.
There are too many beggars to register in South Africa and there are certainly too many people who live off begging in order to make it illegal (that said, I have not checked our laws, but I have never heard of anyone being arrested for begging). There are the children that I have mentioned, but many grown men and women too, mostly black. Increasingly, you also find white people with cardboard placards asking for help because they have no job. I make this distinction between South Africa is still a very polarised country. The white are rich, and except for a handful of elites, the black are poor.
Of course, there are naturally people who take chances, who essentially con others via begging. (I have been conned into giving money to someone who supposedly needed it to catch a bus or a train, only to spot them in an another location not long afterward asking for the same thing.) One can argue that those children on SA street corners are being misused. They often are, I think. The Netherlands has the luxury to control its beggar population. South Africa does not. It is an administrative and man-power intensive task that our government and police force cannot handle. Nor is it one they should handle. There are far more important things to do.
Ideally, I think, all “charitable” money would be channelled via organisations that could oversee the use of that money. I don’t know the state of the NGO space in South Africa, but I suspect it can’t solve all the problems. And a request for a donation from an NGO will never be quite as persuasive as a cupped hand in your face.
In a country as divided as South Africa perhaps the rich need permanent reminders of their good fortune. Perhaps all it leads to is a habit of apathy. But one can be held accountable for apathy, not ignorance. I would like to see a day where South Africa is no longer has beggars, where it can have the luxury of outlawing such distasteful things. I do not think I will live long enough (and I plan to live a very very long time).
I have often been one of those apathetic rich people (rich compared to most South Africans, that is). This little article in a Dutch newspaper has made me question my actions, and, importantly, my inaction.
I am reminded of a quote by Henry Ford:
Capital punishment is as fundamentally wrong as a cure for crime as charity is wrong as a cure for poverty.
I don’t believe that giving to beggars solves the problem of poverty. (It’s an easy way to salve your conscience, perhaps). But when you walk past that beggar, when you turn that blind eye, it is an opportunity to evaluate your life, to ask yourself, have you contributed to a world in which begging would no longer be necessary? For me, the answer, too often is an accusatory “no.”
Meditations of Lambchop 