/ 8 July 2005

Um, er, ah … freedom

The doors of culture shall be open. But only to those with a ticket and a Madiba shirt. The doors of culture shall be open. Except, you must have two years of audited statements to enter. The doors of culture shall be open. For those with the right political connections. The doors of culture shall be open. Especially for those for whom the doors have never been shut.

Fifty years after the adoption of the Freedom Charter, we are discovering that there is some fine print that wasn’t there before. The doors of culture were opened through struggle. But now we learn that they may be shut again. By market forces. Bureaucratic regulations. Lack of political will. Pathetic implementation of visionary policy.

The White Paper on Arts, Culture and Heritage, adopted in August 1996, was premised on the notion that, notwithstanding limited resources: “The doors of culture shall be opened.” Some of the principles espoused in the White Paper included human rights so that “all persons, groups and communities have the right to equal opportunities to participate in the arts and culture, to conserve and develop their cultural heritage”; freedom of expression so that “all persons are free to pursue their vision of artistic creativity without interference, victimisation or censorship”; equity implying “equitable distribution of resources to all forms of art and culture with due regard to the specific needs of each form”; and access which meant the “unhindered access to the means of artistic and cultural activity, information and enjoyment in both financial and geographical senses.”

However, since the White Paper, there has been a shift from a vision based on the principles of access, equity, human rights and freedom of expression to policies that are more economically driven. Sectors that were deemed to be potentially profitable were given greater government attention and resources as “creative industries”. Other areas, like museums, are neglected. Subsidies have been cut to libraries that are increasingly kicked around like a football between different tiers of government, despite these being primary vehicles for providing communities with access to information, knowledge and literature.

The doors of publicly funded theatres have been opened to all, but preference is given to those who can generate the most rental or box-office income. Freedom of creative expression thus becomes the preserve of those with resources. We are spending millions upgrading performing arts institutions founded during the apartheid era so that they are now able to host international musicals that generate profits for their local and international co-producers, but which many — excluded from these by colour in the past — are now unable to access because of prohibitive ticket prices. Yet, little attention has been given to developing sustainable cultural infrastructure close to where people live, effectively to open the doors of culture to them. Where community arts centres have been built, they struggle to keep open their doors.

The apartheid government funded four urban-based theatres. In the past 11 years, two more have been added to the list, both of them based in Johannesburg. Five of the country’s poorer provinces still do not have performing arts spaces funded by national government, so access to artistic works remains the preserve of those located in the historically resourced areas.

Everyone now has access to public funding for the arts but, generally, they have to be proficient in English to complete the forms. And they are required to jump through bureaucratic hoops, such as audited statements and other requirements — with no help from the funding agencies — so, again, it is generally those with resources who are best able to obtain such funding.

The importance of the Freedom Charter was not only about its visionary content, but also the consultative process that brought it about. Yet, in our democracy, major policy shifts have occurred without any dialogue with stakeholders. Stage-managed imbizos where stakeholders are talked at, rather than with, are the order of the day.

The doors of culture may be open. But it’s still quite a struggle to get in.