Anonymous
Offline
Unregistered
|
|
South Africa’s Succession Struggle:The Nongqawuse Syndrome
I don't have the time to report my views on this opinion piece by Achille Mbembe, but I thought some forumers would find it an interesting read. It covers a fair few points, so I expect diverse responses.... there's an angle there for everyone I reckon.
|
OneFlew
Offline
Obsessive-compulsive
Reged: 18/05/02
Posts: 4553
|
|
Some interesting points but it's mostly overblown, hyperbolic mental masturbation. Second-rate stuff.
|
Anonymous
Offline
Unregistered
|
|
Don't spare the cutting comments 
Out of interest's sake ... what was an interesting point?
|
OneFlew
Offline
Obsessive-compulsive
Reged: 18/05/02
Posts: 4553
|
|
Perhaps the interesting bits are related to what the article says about the author and what he represents rather than the actual article content.
There is a striving for an explanatory frame of reference. In order to adhere to the tenets of Thabo's renaissance, the desire to home-grow things and so on, it is called a 'Nongqawuse syndrome'. This ideologically-driven pseudo-intellectual puffery is then used to connect shower habits, AIDS strategies and so on to the utterings of some crazy bint to her credulous tribesmen 160 years ago.
This fairy tale legitimises the identification of 'false prophets'. It legitimises laughing at their populism, their gauche manners and crude symbols. And it legitimises the 'elite' laughing at them as they know they can get out of harm's way if they need to.
In this sense it is a thinly veiled and partisan allegory of the Mbeki/Zuma mudwrestling match. It is classist in that it is disdainful towards the working class hero and rather more lenient towards the 'let them eat cake' detached elite.
And, while it portentously mutters about dangerous times 15 years down the line, it reveals nothing of substance about shifts in ideology or thought, or the legitimacy of the ruling party's moral framework, underlying this. It in effect says that doubts have been raised about the moral legitimacy of the enterprise but does little to analyse the moral content of the enterprise then and now. This would have been a much more worthwhile and rigorous area of study.
He opts instead for the cosy warmth and blameless historical inevitably of an African tale in which he knowingly sneers at the proles and offers only an insider's criticism of the ruling group.
Unsatisfying stuff.
|
Anonymous
Offline
Unregistered
|
|
First of all the guy is a fake! Mbeki who does not even know how to pronounce Umprofethi(that is how a xhosa would right and pronounce that word), is not Xhosa.
Some of his points are good, Zuma is an example of these "leaders" who are exploiting the ignorance of our people.
Overall I think he makes a lot of hypothetical statements without presenting any examples, for a person who is not savvy about SA politics, people would have not idea what he is talking about.
|
Anonymous
Offline
Unregistered
|
|
Hmmm... I wouldn't crucify him for using local examples. After consideration I agree that it says nothing of substance regarding the succession, predictions for the future... and he does waffle about everything else under the sun. That's what I liked about the article in the beginning, but now I see that is a weakness in fact.
[edited to change everyone to everything]
Edited by questioning (12/06/06 09:56 AM)
|
NdodayomXhosa
Offline
Obsessive-compulsive
Reged: 06/05/02
Posts: 5211
Loc: Pretoria, the other Eastern Ca...
|
|
Mangcu's analysis
Here is what Moeletsi really meant, and not what this fool says.
--------------------
The less intelligent a white man, the stupider black men seem to him.
Andre Gide
|
Anonymous
Offline
Unregistered
|
|
It is an interesting perspective in that Mbembe is based at Wits, but is not South African, so is not rooted in South African political tradition.
|
Anonymous
Offline
Unregistered
|
|
Thanks. This illustrates how people read their own opinions into the arguments of others. Maybe that's why sometimes it is best to speak directly ...
Quote:
I think what Moeletsi Mbeki was suggesting, and what Mbembe evades and avoids, is that the problem lies with the whole leadership and not just Zuma. However strongly we may feel about any given subject, it is the duty of public intellectuals to avoid labels and stereotypes, otherwise they become no different from nativist ideologues who silence debate with insults.
|
Anonymous
Offline
Unregistered
|
|
I am asking your permission to spin off your thread and discuss what would it mean for SA if Zuma was to be Pres. vs Mbeki's presidency.
We all agree that mbeki(guy who made the speech) is very vague in his arguments and we can only guess what he is really saying. Since we probably won't achieve much in debating what he means, maybe we can better use our time debating Zuma's hypothetical presidency and what it would mean for SA.
Do you agree?
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: