OXFORD & CAMBRIDGE BUSINESS ALUMNI OF SOUTHERN AFRICA

OF TRUTH AND THE RIGHT TO LIVE: SEMBENE OUSMANE AND THE BATTLE OF IDEAS

It is not for the fulfilment of custom that I express my sincerest gratitude for the privilege of the invitation to address the Oxford & Cambridge Business Alumni of Southern Africa. It is a delight to engage those eminent in the battle of ideas in our quest to determine those ideas most worthy of implementation.

In January 1879, Lord General Chelmsford, the General Officer Commanding Her Majesty's forces in Southern Africa, led the British Army's 2nd/24th Regiment of Foot across the Umzinyathi (or Buffalo) River thereby declaring war with the Zulu Kingdom. This extraordinary decision had been taken after Chelmsford had written in July 1878 that; "I shall strive to be in a position to show them (the Zulus) how hopelessly inferior they are to us in fighting power." He had continued to say that: "I am inclined to think, that the first experience of the power of the Martini-Henrys will be such a surprise to the Zulus that they will not be formidable after the first effort."

The events which followed on the 22nd of January 1879 have been so thrashed out that there is, perhaps nothing left to tell -except the truth. To say that the British suffered a spectacular defeat at Isandlwana, would, perhaps, be an understatement.

Nevertheless, three Victoria crosses were awarded by the Her Majesty for the Battle of Isandlwana. These were received by Leutenants Coghill and Melvill (who died at fugitives drift during their escape from the battlefield) and to Private Samuel Wassal (No. 427 Private).

In the afternoon of January 22, 1879, the Zulu army advanced on Rorke's Drift, which was under the command of Lieutenant John Chard, (who had never fired a shot in anger before that day). A popular myth is that Chard successfully commandeered the defence of Rorke's Drift. This myth is further fuelled by the British Army's issuing of no less than eleven Victoria Crosses for the defence of Rorke's Drift.

Themba Mthetwa makes an extraordinary analysis of the defence of Rorke's Drift. He points out that after the disaster at Isandlwana, the mission at Rorke's Drift ceased to be strategic for Chelmsford's 2nd/24th Regiment of Foot. It did not occur to Chard, that he should retreat to Helpmekaar when he received the news of the defeat at Isandlwana. It is a mystery as to why the evacuation of the Rorke's Drift depot was never ordered despite the fleeing of Leutenants Henderson and Stephenson.

Perhaps the most chilling comment on these events came from General Sir Garnet Wolsely the British Commander who took over from Lord Chelmsford who wrote of this affair; "I am sorry that both of these officers, (Coghill and Melvill), were not killed with their men at Isandlwana instead of where they were. I don't like the idea of officers escaping on horseback when their men on foot are killed. Heroes have been made of men like Melville and Cighill, who, taking advantage of their having horses, bolted from the scene of the action to save their lives, it is monstrous making heroes of those who saved or attempted to save their lives by bolting or of those who, shut up in buildings at Rorke's Drift, could not bolt, and fought like rats for their lives which they could not otherwise save."

There you have it. The truth from Sir Garnet Wolsely's pen, corroborated by Themba Mthetwas incisive reasoning on the matter.

This week, The Presidency issued a statement of condolence to the family of the late Senegalese novelist and filmmaker, Sembene Ousmane. They quoted Fa Keita, the Old One, in a passage from Ousmane's 1960 novel, God's Bits of Wood, speaking to his comrades of actions, values, thoughts and living.

Fa Keita demands of his comrades: "to act so that no man dares to strike you because he knows you speak the truth, to act so that you can no longer be arrested because you are asking for the right to live, to act so that all of this will end, both here and elsewhere: that is what should be in your thoughts."

Accordingly, Ousmane's Fa Keita, continues to counsel his comrades thus: "That is what you must explain to others, so that you will never again be forced to bow down before anyone, but also so that no one shall be forced to bow down before you."

This simple and profound passage begs us to question: How can one act so that no man dares to strike another one? How can we know the truth we have to speak? It is illustrative of Ousmane's point and of his methodology that we find ourselves having to question, to ask what it is that should be in our thoughts, what explanation are we looking for? In short, what do we have to do, by virtue of what thoughts?

A complementary set of questions may be found in the debate over the concept of "liberation theology." An April 2005 interview with the retired catholic archbishop of São Paulo, Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns, added sparks to the debate ensuing in the church.

Amongst other things, Cardinal Arns stated: "I always wanted an alternative ... a social system where all would have what is sufficient for a decent life and where there would be justice and equality. In our country, 2% of the population has more wealth than the other 98%. This is a scandal."

And so, Cardinal Arns declared: "Solving social problems is the proof of whether we are civilised or not."

What we see from both Ousmane and Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns is not merely a battle for ideas, but a questioning of ideas in action, a challenge to the ideas upon which the present seems to be premised. History is engaged in as a theatre of contest between divergent ideas, and their questioning, the questions arising from attempts to implement them, vying to fashion the world according to each particular point of understanding.

How coincidental is it that there are stark similarities between Brazilian and South African societies. Both are developing countries. Both have massive social inequalities. Whereas 70% of the South African population is composed of indigenous Africans, Brazil has the highest African population after Nigeria. Both societies share a common repressive past and a common, current social democratic agenda.

In both societies we find men and women struggling for the right to live, to think, to act. In South Africa as in Brazil reside men and women who have vowed to never again be forced to bow down before anyone, but also so that no one shall be forced to bow down to them.

And yet, this struggle to live and the refusal to bow down to others and to be bowed upon is not a given. One only has to examine the views daily expressed from the comfort of their editorial armchairs and their newspaper ivory towers, by the high priests of the status quo to see that the clarion call, "Aluta continua!" it is not a mere slogan.

Many of you would have witnessed the recent vitriolic attack launched on the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) over its stance on the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of Barloworld. A brief background is necessary for those who may have missed it.

Barloworld appointed its first ever black Chairman in its 105 years, after a robust search process that included interviews involving oustside professional headhunters as well as unsolicited consultations with shareholders. Barloworld then moved to appoint, a white male as Deputy Chairman, without any process or further consultations with shareholders. For the white Deputy Chairperson, a process had not been necessary. The colour of his skin guaranteed the creation of the post as well as his appointment without any further discussion or process.

The organisation was being further bureaucratised at a time when it is unbundling and requires swift decision making. The PIC raised these concerns. The failure to answer these suggested that the creation of the position of deputy chairperson, and the appointment of Mr Munday, who joined the board only in January of this year, was clearly a statement about the ability of Africans to manage an institution. The PIC expressed the view that this was racist, condescending and patronising.

A few days later, the editor of the Business Day launched an attack, accusing the PIC of embarrassing the country on the occasion of the annual conference of the World Association of Newspapers which was attended by about 2000 newspaper owners and editors. This attack was, of course, a follow up of similar attacks by both the Democratic Alliance and Tony Leon (him of the apartheid defence force propaganda machinery).

The Business Day would, of course, not say anything about an address by Fredrick van Zyl Slabbert to the same editors conference where, amongst other things he made the extraordinary suggestion that this country was at the risk of drowning in the yoke of anarchy and crime, that Black Economic Empowerment policies discriminated against white, coloured and Indian people, that we risked the danger of the leadership of the country confusing legitimacy for competence and that once appointed to positions, people often thought that they were intelligent.

This did not constitute an embarrassment. No Sir, not to birds of a feather.

The PIC was recently accused, again in the pages of the Business Day, of acting in ways that would be illegal in the United Kingdom. The source of this attack was none other than the Oxford don, RW Johnson. When we saw this attack, we were reminded of many of his acutely embarrassing writings, of Johnson's attack on Archbishop Desmond Tutu in the London Review of Books in November 1988.

On that occasion, he had written that: "Tutu is a politician in the classically African - that is to say, extravagant - mould: a headline seeker, a man who makes wild, unsubstantiated and inconsistent charges, goes out of his way to infuriate and inflame even moderate white opinion, and is an egomaniac of historic proportions ... Rather like a bantam cock, he struts and preens, then darts in for a quick attack on the government"

Take a deep breath, for Johnson continues: "[Tutu is] - a deliberate personification of the ‘cheeky kaffir.' The next moment he has darted back and is the serene but slightly mischievous churchman."

Ten years ago in 1997, Johnson wrote of apartheid in the June edition of the London Prospect Magazine:

The big and virtually unspeakable truth is that, wicked and dreadful though it was, apartheid was, if seen in comparative perspective, a relatively mild historical experience. People were shoved around, bullied and deprived of rights, not allowed to live where they wanted, sometimes beaten up, often exploited and frequently humiliated: all very horrible and inexcusable. But compared to, say, what has happened in Rwanda, or the Holocaust, or even with the almost casually atrocious and even genocidal policies typical of many colonial and slave-owning societies, apartheid was merely grossly insensitive and unkind social engineering.

These ideas from a regular contributor to the Business Day do not constitute an embarrassment, or do they? Should they?

The point of all of this is that ideas should not be expressed for their sake. They should be the embodiment of the kind of society we would like to see. A comment by the late Edward Said is illustrative of the point: "Every intellectual whose metier is articulating and representing specific views, ideas, ideologies, logically aspires to making them work in a society. The intellectual who claims only to write for him or herself, or for the sake of pure learning, or abstract science, is not to be, and must not be, believed."

We must, therefore, be worried when the dominant ideas are those which would have us act so that we continue to be struck for speaking the truth in pursuit of the right to live, for not continuing to bow down to others!

I have to urge you, our illustrious alumni of Oxford and Cambridge that you explain to others or, at least, that you consider the question, what is it that we must explain to others so that we will never again be forced to bow down before anyone, but also so that no one shall be forced to bow down before us?

Aluta continua!