Waiting for…what?

The residents of Khayelitsha, a township on the eastern outskirts of Cape Town, were rejoicing, deliriously swirling in fits of joy as the long awaited news reached them. On the back of the Mandela Park housing scandal which saw the Western Cape MEC for housing deliver only 5 of the 437 houses that were promised by the city of Cape Town.  Amidst the toilet saga which leaves hundreds of households with unfinished, unroofed external toilets, a West End play came to town!

A play of this caliber, of such international acclaim should be well received, especially considering the ‘pay as much as you can’ ticket price. However, the reception was rather subdued. Does this come as any surprise? Effectively you are bringing a show steeped in white middle class culture and expecting a distinctly African culture to embrace it. People are right to be skeptical about this cultural fusion. I understand what the organizers of this event were trying to achieve; as director Sean Mathias admirably states “We wanted to bring our production to the people of Khayelitsha in a venue that is accessible and at a price everyone can afford, and in this way properly honour the notion of ‘touring’”. Despite these admirable sentiments I can’t help wondering if this was sincerely an act which upholds the spirit of ‘touring’ or was it a cleverly executed publicity ploy?

Was it appropriate for a West End show to flounce into a community that is struggling to establish adequate sanitation, education infrastructure, sufficient housing, or a basic income level? On my way there we picked up a couple of hitchhikers and asked if they had heard of the play, ‘yeah yeah I heard something about that’. You didn’t want to go then? I inquired. A violent click erupted and a sound ‘CHA…I ain’t got no money’. The very assumption that this woman had the choice to go was perhaps ignorant, and the car was plunged into silence as we reflected upon our arrival in the township to see a West End play that the locals couldn’t afford. ‘Pay as much as you can’ was rather insulting considering people would buy more food for their family if they ‘could’, they would re-roof their house for the winter if they ‘could’, and they probably wouldn’t be chomping at the bit to see Waiting for Godot if they ‘could’.

On the other hand what harm does it do? Other than being exposed to an alien pastime and experiencing theatre at a level never before imagined, it is hardly a malicious act. Publicity stunt or not it has gathered white South African’s in a hitherto ‘excluded’ area. This recreated the atmosphere of the multi-racial, multi-ethnic fan parks of the World Cup, which was the first time South Africans stood up and noticed the beauty and unity of their people. Even those who have not made it out to the township will have talked about the prospect of going, or at the very least it will have been discussed. With this discussion, true feelings and fears will have emerged, hopefully with an element of introspection. Self reflection concerning the sub conscious prejudices that we harbor should be a positive action.

The positive vibes of the event were plainly evident during the show, which was a fusion of slapstick actions with a colossal underlying message. Whether this message was effectively portrayed is not important. Godot being a pseudonym for God, the questioning of a life spent waiting for a non-existent character, encountering along the way the struggles of reality, and the repetitive nature of a life spent waiting; all this was slightly, and perhaps wisely diluted. So, the opening speech was delivered solely in Xhosa, the audience of black, white and coloured people rose in a standing ovation, and everyone went home with a warm theatre buzz! It was nothing but a success, but was it appropriate? As Waiting for Godot departs the residents who for ‘one night only’ were witness to world class theatre are left waiting for houses, roofing, food, education, sanitation, opportunity, and dignity! Saving and campaigning for the next theatre performance is probably not high on their list of priorities!

I am interested to hear peoples opinions on the Waiting for Godot performance in Khayletisha, please comment.

Read Full Post »

Where the blame falls

Amidst the piercing vuvezelas, zulu dancing, cries of Bafana Bafana (the boys), and general joy-ridden pandemonium, there is a growing resentment that lurks beneath the surface, masked by the bright, painted faces.

Despite the projected gross impact of R93 billion on the South African economy and the 695000 jobs created (http://www.southafrica.info/2010/worldcup-overview), such profit will line the pockets of government officials, advertising moguls, FIFA representatives, and business owners, whilst the 695000 will shuffle home on 11th July and wonder what the hell just happened. In their state of bewilderment, where and to whom will they direct their blame?

Who is actually to blame for these empty promises and who the people blame may differ, but it is the perceptions of the people that could have devastating effects for the political progress of a country already wracked with political instability, crippling poverty and inequality. The main question is whether the government is viewed as an actively deceitful party in the shattered hopes or merely the ignorant puppets dancing to the strategic pulls of FIFA’s hands?

The 2010 world cup was regaled in South Africa as a panacea to the problems of the poor, promising to; increase business opportunities, heighten tourism potential, and secure sponsorship and investment deals to ease impoverished situations. The ANC voiced the notion that the world cup would “spread confidence and prosperity across the entire continent’ (http://www.sa2010.gov.za/node/515). Instead, many feel economic gain has been diverted into the pockets of the government and the associated commerical giants. A torrent of distrust, and discontentment has gushed ferociously into the face of Zuma, his idea of a ‘proud legacy’ (www.fifa.com) has been thoroughly derailed.

Others overlook the government’s responsibility and instead blame FIFA for allowing the globalisation of football to dictate the unchallenged control they have had over the event. In a recent article ‘2010 World Cup: Africa’s turn or turning on Africa? A political economy of FIFA’s African adventure, (Soccer & Society, volume 11, issue 1 & 2, January 2010, by Patrick Bond), it was stated that ‘FIFA, rather than the host country, has the monopoly of television rights, advertising and stadium space’. FIFAs domination has rendered the government helpless, and prevented them from implementing their anticipated World Cup model, aimed at South African advancement. (Is it naïve to believe the government had these good intentions?) This view is supported by FIFA regulations that have gripped the country throughout the tournament, including suggestions of heavy FIFA censorship in national newspapers and unreasonable street trader regulations. Beatrice, a food trader who operated in the area surrounding Greenpoint Stadium was told to buy a portable kitchen and register with FIFA if she wanted to trade during the World Cup period. Unsurprisingly the costs of these regulations have left her no choice but to abandon the area and survive by other means ‘until all this nonsense is over’. The condemnation of FIFA as a corporate evil has exposed the weakness of the government. Those that hold FIFA responsible have not pardoned the government completely, blaming them for their pathetic vulnerability at the hands of an international multinational.

There is another idea that rather than taking a dictatorial role which ousted the government entirely, FIFA in fact manipulated the government into genuinely believing that the positive economical effects of the world cup would trickle down in a beautiful cascade of development? Whether people blame FIFA as a totalitarian actor or as a manipulative actor, it is the ANC who are receiving the brunt of the peoples’ dissatisfaction. Perhaps the ANC are innocent of intentionally deluding the public, but regardless, the people are finding them guilty of either unfathomable ignorance or alarming weakness.
Is it fair that the ANC is burdened by a political legacy that they had very little control in creating? As FIFA pump their meaty fists in the air celebrating the most commercially successful World Cup ever, the ANC are left to abate the bewildered public. I am not defending the government’s faults of overestimating gains and delivering sensationalized information, but FIFA are escaping the heartbroken eyes, the confused frowns and the discontented glares of the people. Is it fair for the ANC to be labeled the enemies, be faced with a legacy that threatens political progress, and have to unify an increasingly fragmented society, while FIFA flee in a state of merriment, having garnered corporate admiration as well as a 50% rise in income since the last World Cup (Fifa secretary-general Jerome Valcke, The Cape Times 4th June 2010)

Read Full Post »

No diamonds for Mugabe

At the end of June, you might be pleased to know that the Kimberley Process (KP), the international diamond-trade watchdog, kept up its sanctions on Zimbabwe’s dubious trade in the valuable little stones ie. not letting it exist. I think this is great. Mugabe’s fantastically evil regime cannot garner any funds from this lucrative trade on which to prop itself. Without KP certification, very few legitimate and international traders will touch Zimbabwean diamonds.

In the diamond ‘fields’ (I dont know what they are called), especially in the Marange area, militia continue to be present and subjecting locals to enforced mining (amongst other ugly things) of the stones. This is in direct contradiction of the KP, which exists to ensure that diamonds are not orginating from conflict zones and thus funding warfare (in a nutshell).

This decision is all the more impressive, because, as I was doing my research, I found that the KP actually legislates on diamonds from ‘conflict-zones’ and not those from ‘human-rights-abuses-zones’. For once it seems an international body has risen above the letters of the law and non-sensical beaurocracy.

It is not just abuses in and around the diamond mines themselves, but also of activists and investigators into the sickening practices surrounding excavation. A man called Farai Maguwu, the Director for the Centre for Research and Development (CRD), was reporting on what was happening in the Marange area diamond fields. Do you know what happened to him and his family? Arrested, detained and beaten by Zimbabwean police.

So well done to the Kimberley Process for taking positive action in a desperate situation.

I now turn your attention to a Nas tune called ‘Shine on ’em’. Have fun.

Read Full Post »