June 16 commemorations have come and gone. We witnessed the launch of the Youth Development Agency with great fanfare and expectations. We wish them well and hope their lofty ambitions are realised.
It was easy to notice that there was a big sector of youth missing both at these celebrations and at past events. This is a group that could loosely be called the “professional youth”.
They seem to have a sense of detachment and alienation from events like these. This is sad because it could deprive youth of the collective strength, skills and resources to help chart their way forward and be the masters of their fate.
How much of this is the consequence of us failing to provide a compelling vision for them of what this transformation process will deliver and their role in it? They have to be full participants in creating this vision and must know what contribution is expected of them.
Instead we label and dismiss them as petty bourgeoisie, neo-capitalists or, ridiculously, black diamonds.
Such labels are not helpful. The problem is that these youth are becoming a “lost generation” because of the alienation and their potential contribution will remain untapped. The dismissive labels we attach to them will see to that.
These youth have a different experience to ours and our predecessors when it comes to racism, sexism, apartheid and all other unfair discriminatory practices. Hence there must be a more appropriate engagement strategy between the new and the old.
With respect to Steve Biko’s family, when the youthful Biko said, “Black man, you are on your own”, I do not think he could have foreseen how factitious we would become and how this undermines our resolve and diminishes the collective wisdom required if this socioeconomic emancipation that our transformation agenda dreams of is to be realised.
Recently at an “after-hours board meeting” I was amazed at the discussions by the corporate youth on how the ills of this country and continent can be tackled and resolved. Such insights are absent in the transformation process.
What is remarkable though is that whatever label is attached, people are still prepared to acknowledge where they come from and the need for them to play a role in uplifting those communities that sacrificed so much for them.
This can contribute to undermining racism and a sense of loss and hopelessness. Those communities generally do not know the labels or postures we attach but they know that in the spirit of ubuntu and for their sacrifices during hard times, we who are advancing ought to give back, whatever the circumstances. We can do more, together.
The previous government was seen to be business-friendly and tied to the fortunes of the BEE types and was condemned for it. This one is alleged to be encumbered by the interests of the left.
Although all this makes for interesting reading and great intellectual debate, and black people need support and resources as they contemplate their fate, the disadvantaged populace needs transformation that delivers a better life for all.
This government can play a significant role in harmonising black power in all facets to achieve this.
Otherwise the past few weeks have been exciting again after the relative quietness, maybe because of the financial crash and the recession which have been dominating the headlines.
Nationalisation re-emerged as an issue creating debate, Spar and Foskor came out with interesting empowerment deals that seem to put some emphasis on broad-based beneficiaries.
Nationalisation does raise tempers among both those who are supportive of it and those against it. What is of interest to me would be what we are seeking to achieve with nationalisation.
Alternatively, what are the circumstances that give rise to this call?
I suspect that when the transformation process does not deliver the sought-after socioeconomic emancipation it is purported to deliver, any of the interventions that promise to create access for the marginalised will be seen to be a viable option.
It is important that instead of reacting in hysteria and again labelling we frequently review where we are with the wealth and access redistribution agenda and then debate interventions that can expedite that process.
Otherwise responses tend to reveal old prejudices and fears rather than genuine desire for proper engagement with the transformation process.