David Beresford: A SECOND LOOK
In the week of the launch of a new television channel, which no doubt heralds another garbage-load of American schlock being dumped on the local market, a debate on SAfm brought it home that the true “voice of the nation” is radio.
The programme was Talk at Will, the subject the “African renaissance” and the broadcast a classic example of a nation in conversation with itself.
The debate followed the much-hyped “African renaissance” conference held earlier in the week and was striking, like all great radio, more for what developed spontaneously than what was perhaps intended.
The panel for the programme was all black. In that respect they faithfully reflected the racial composition of the steering committee which had been set up by the earlier conference to get the “African renaissance” on the road.
Intriguingly, however, the callers to the programme were overwhelmingly non- black. At a guess (and with a mental apology to the Race Classification Board which at least used to rely on something more tangible than voices over the ether before indulging in such distinctions) there were five Indians, four blacks, two coloureds, two whites and one (self- declared) khoi-khoi.
Whether this in turn reflected an ironic choice of calls on the part of host Tim Modise (standing in for Will Bernard), or the racial demography of the airways where SAfm is concerned, was not disclosed.
Whatever the reason, the sense was created of a conversation between communities, the non-black groups – the outsiders – calling in to the blacks who controlled the studio.
The overriding question the non-blacks put to the black panel: will there be a place at the table for us? Or as the first caller, “Will”, put it: “I am a white South African, born in Bloemfontein, a third generation South African. I have nowhere to go. I am an African. Will we, the coloureds and the Indians – the total population – form part of this `African renaissance’?”
The second white caller, “Hoffy”, described how he had worked as a doctor in rural KwaZulu-Natal, and had come away with the realisation that he had discovered in the rural way of life an antidote to the “spiritual bankruptcy” of the West.
“Fatima” spoke with longing of pre- colonial tribal values and the Inkatha Freedom Party MP, Farouk Cassim, conjured up a vision of a renaissance founded in contributions by “new Africans … from whichever part of the world they originally came”.
Superficially, the answer to this pot-of-gold enthusiasm on offer under the rainbow was clear-cut. It was articulated in answer to Will’s demand as to whether he was invited to the banquet. Said the black scientist, Professor Malegapuru Makgoba: “The simple answer is `yes’.”
“But,” agonised a black caller from Alexandra, “will we ever get our own house in order as long as there are other races among us?”
“If only we can get our house in order first, as Africans, as real Africans – I am now talking about black people – and leave these other people, the whites and the Islams alone, just till we get ourselves together first,” he added.
In the studio Makgoba leapt to the defence of constitutional principle with decision. “Our liberation movements have always struggled for non-racialism and that is the principle which informs our society today.”
But the political science lecturer, Dumisani Hlope, had seemingly been agonising over the professor’s earlier assurances of non-racism.
The caller was raising “a very serious conceptual issue”, he announced, one which plagued “Africans” – their predilection to reassure their audience of the moment.
“If Tim [Modise] had a group of 20 whites and they asked you who was an African, the chances are you are going to define it conscious that you do not want to upset them,” said Hlope.
“And chances are that you could define an African to another group of 20 black people totally differently from the way you defined it to the white audience,” he added.
The issue at stake, said Hlope, was “how does one begin to pursue an African perspective” without isolating oneself from perspectives “that may not be necessarily African and yet may be beneficial to the African cause”.
If this was true “we don’t know what we mean by `African renaissance'”, protested Thaninga Msimango, general manager of SABC2.
“There is only one `African renaissance’,” she added. “First and foremost `African renaissance’ is not about exclusivity, about an exclusive language or an exclusive race – it is about Africa. And all those who feel themselves to be African, all those who belong to Africa are the people who should be carrying forward the development of the `African renaissance’ …”
Thami Mazwai, the chair of the “African renaissance” steering committee and a well-known publisher, announced that 8 000 copies of a book detailing the deliberations of last week’s conference were about to be published and would be delivered to every high school in the country as well as going on public sale.
“The media see things with white eyes …” continued Mazwai, complaining at the disproportionate amount of attention given to Princess Diana as opposed to Jerry Rawlings in the South African Press.
Said Mazwai: “The `African renaissance’ offers “the freedom, the identity, the dignity that we fought for in the liberation struggle. At the present moment we don’t have this, because we are told that, look, in order to be civilised, to be seen as civilised, you have got to do things the way I, the white man, does it.
“It is only when I do things in a way in which I, Thami Mazwai, an African, believe that things should be done that we will have true liberation.”
“I just want to urge South Africans to be positive and optimistic about the `African renaissance’ and to stop being negative and pessimistic,” said Magoba as the programme drew to an end.
“I think it is an important strategy, an important concept that we should embrace and make sure that it happens.”
Yes. If only we could understand what it was.