KINSHASA: BETWEEN DESPAIR AND HOPE

I wrote the following article after my first deployment to the DRC, which was from November 2010 to June 2011. I was deployed as part of the SANDF Op Mistral XVI, which is in support of the UN Peacekeeping Force (MONUSCO).

This article was submitted for publication to the SANDF Chaplains Magazine, but unfortunately was rejected by the editorial committee, thus its publication here.

What follows is a personal reflection and reflects no other views except my own.

 

Kinshasa is a place that assails the senses. The minute one steps off the aircraft one walks into a wall of heat exacerbated by high humidity. The heat is relentless. Temperatures regularly soar into the 40s. Even in the evenings the heat does not let up. The air is thick with smoke. Smoke from the hundreds of vehicles on the road, smoke from all the open fires, smoke from all the old tyres being burnt. The smoke is pungent but not as pungent as the smell emanating from the decaying and dilapidated sewerage infrastructure. There is litter everywhere. There does not seem to be a place where there is no litter.
 

Wheelbarrow

Cargo handlers



Kinshasa City Centre

Kinshasa City centre




Kinshasa City Centre

Roadside Stalls

Roadside Petrol Stall



Roadside Stalls

And then there are the people. People everywhere, a teeming seething mass of people, on the streets, on the pavements, in the buildings, in the vehicles. Everyone is moving, most are in a hurry to be somewhere. With the people come the vehicles. The battered vehicles and taxis are everywhere, filled to overflowing with people. They too are in a hurry, pushing, shoving, jostling, opening up impossible gaps for themselves, creating lanes of traffic on non-existent roads and pavements, making maniacal manoeuvres to ensure that they are at the front of the endless queues of vehicles on the broken roads. It takes some getting used to.



Roadside Stalls

Traffic Policeman





 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Driving in the traffic is harrowing. One is struck by the impatience and the intolerance of the drivers. Everyone assumes he or she has the right of way regardless of the rules of the road and regardless of the fact that the other person may have been there first. Nobody gives anyone else a chance to pass even if it is abundantly clear that it is the only way to clear the congestion in an intersection. It seems that people would rather stay stuck and frustrated, venting their frustration at one another by shouting and hooting. The disrespect and rudeness is shocking to the extent that it almost seems that people hate one another. The traffic police are there trying to control the flow of traffic, but they too are largely ignored. Those policemen who do stamp down their authority, openly solicit bribes to open paths for vehicles.

Taxi

Even normal human interaction seems to be largely transactional in nature. A simple enquiry for directions will involve a financial transaction. What we accept as common courtesy in South Africa costs money in the DRC. Prices on goods and commodities on the street are exorbitant until bargained down with a reluctant seller intent on fleecing the customer. Foreigners are tolerated as long as they have money to spend. The thin veneer of courtesy disappears completely when it is clear that payment is not going to be made.

 

Traffic



Traffic




Taxi

Poverty is everywhere. It is palpable. The vast majority seem to eke out an existence eating the staple cassava meal and spinach that is sold on the pavements everywhere. Overweight people are few and far between and obesity is non existent. The shops in town are well stocked with expensive groceries, commodities, fruit and vegetables from all over the world, except the DRC. Only well to do locals and expatriates are found in those shops, shielded away from the majority who will never deign to enter there. Those shops are definitely not accessible to the poor majority: they are relegated to the streets and pavements. The paradox of this rich and fertile country having to import basic foods is difficult to understand and impossible to accept.

 

Taxi

The DRC is a damaged country and Kinshasa is a damaged city. Here we are not only talking about the buildings and the infrastructure. It is almost as if the psyche of the people has been damaged too, which makes it even worse. The DRC has a tough history. First it was the colonial masters who took what they could before independence and then left the people to their own devices. A bloody coup saw Mobutu Sese Seko rise to power, whose dictatorial and corrupt regime was followed by a bloody civil war that has only recently ended. There are refugees of war from other conflicts in the region. Rebel groups from other countries continue to operate in the DRC. The people of the DRC and specifically those in Kinshasa, have borne the brunt of it. The scars are everywhere, the damage has taken its toll. The people have suffered and continue to suffer. It at times can cause one to despair.



On the Pavement

And yet, in the midst of the damage and despair there is hope. The people are busy and on the move. Everyone seems to be selling something. Everyone seems to be going somewhere. Time is of the essence to the people of Kinshasa. There is no drunkenness on the streets. There is no loitering on the streets either. People work hard. People are not afraid of hard physical labour. Many earn a living by hauling heavy cargo on small wheelbarrows, pushing their heavy loads for many kilometres. The many stalls and small shops on the streets are always open and always busy, day and night.



In the Traffic

The people of Kinshasa are people of faith. There are churches and mosques everywhere. On Sundays the churches are full. People readily speak about their faith and the hope and inspiration they find in their faith. South Africans more than anyone know the crucial role that faith played in our peaceful transition to democracy and national reconciliation. The religious leaders of the DRC must accept the role they have to play in healing the wounds of the past and bringing about national reconciliation in their damaged country.

 

Police Station

There is hope too in the sense that the DRC is a rich country. It is rich in mineral resources. It has enough water to meet the needs of the whole of Africa. It has the potential through hydroelectric projects to produce enough electricity for the continent. It is a fertile country with the potential to be the food basket of Africa. The trick is to channel the energy and the enterprise of the people into realising this potential. Channelling this potential must be in the context of a transparent and peaceful democracy. All this is a daunting challenge, but as fellow Africans it is our responsibility to assist and to provide the necessary skills and resources. This is the only way to heal a broken nation and to restore people's dignity and respect. It is a lesson we as South Africans have learnt and must share with our fellow Africans.


Let us continue to pray for our brothers and sisters in the DRC, especially those in Kinshasa. In the words of Bishop Desmond Tutu, as people of faith, we are “prisoners of hope.”



Taxi

Traffic

 



METHODIST CHAPLAINS IN THE SANDF: SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A SERVING CHAPLAIN

INTRODUCTION

The Methodist Church of Southern Africa (MCSA) has a long history of appointing ministers to serve as chaplains to the armed forces. The relationship of the Church with the Defence Force has at times been strained and fraught with controversy, especially during the days of the apartheid regime. At the time there was a view that the Church appointing chaplains to the South African Defence Force (SADF) was a tacit legitimation of a regime which the Church viewed as sinful and illegitimate. The counter view held that Methodist conscripts needed to be served by their own ministers, and that the Church had a pastoral responsibility to bring a differing perspective to the dominant pro-regime view within the SADF. This controversy has dissipated since the formation of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) in 1995. The MCSA now plays a leading role in the Christian Religious Advisory Board of the SANDF, and ministers who feel a calling to this particular form of ministry are free to be appointed as chaplains. The relationship the Church has with the SANDF is regulated by a Church-State Agreement that is ratified both by the Conference of the MCSA and the Chaplain General who signs on behalf of the SANDF.

Methodist chaplains wear the non-executive rank of “Christian Chaplain” and are by definition non-combatants and enjoy protection as such under the Geneva Convention during times of armed conflict. They serve all members and not only Methodists. The military context provides a unique opportunity for ministry in the workplace to people of all denominations and faiths. Chaplains deploy with their units on internal (mostly border protection) and external (mostly peace support) operations. The chaplain's ministry primarily encompasses proclamation of the Gospel, pastoral care and teaching. The other important role the chaplain must play within the organisation is prophetic, to be the voice of conscience within the organisation. Chaplains serve on the command structures of the SANDF in an advisory capacity. Chaplains are regarded as the specialists on spiritual and ethical matters, and their advice is sought by commanders when making command decisions.

SELECTION OF MINISTERS FOR THE CHAPLAINCY

The MCSA has a responsibility to appoint ordained ministers to the SANDF who will be the face of the Church in the organisation, who will uphold the good name of the Church and will continue to be faithful to their calling to Word and Sacrament. Ministers who are appointed must have a clear calling to work within the military context. They should be comfortable working across all racial, language, cultural, denominational and faith groups. Ministers who are appointed must be willing to be posted to any military base in the country and must be willing to be deployed with their soldiers, which is usually for a minimum period of six months. They need to be physically fit and be willing to live in situations deprived of normal home comforts, especially when on deployment. They will also need to be prepared to undergo military training that will acquaint them with the military environment and will equip them to cope with the rigours of military life, especially in war zones. The MCSA must be willing to commit a minister to the SANDF for a minimum period of ten years, as the rules of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) do not allow a withdrawal of an employee’s full actuarial benefit if the person has contributed for a period of less than ten years. For this same reason, ministers over the age of 50 should be excluded from selection as the retirement age in the SANDF is 60 and the consequent loss of pension benefits would be enormous.

A minister who is appointed to the SANDF as a chaplain is an ambassador of the MCSA. This places a responsibility on the Church to ensure that only the best and most suitable ministers are appointed. Ministers who have disciplinary charges against them should be excluded, as should those who have failed in their Circuit appointments. The Chaplaincy should not be seen as a “dumping ground” of the Church to rid itself of troublesome or incompetent ministers, nor should the Church use the Chaplaincy as a form of rehabilitation for recalcitrant ministers. Neither should ministers be allowed to seek refuge in the Chaplaincy to escape from difficulties or potential disciplinary issues in circuit. Those who fail in circuit are likely to fail in the Chaplaincy, and will cause incalculable harm to the reputation of the MCSA in the process.

The Chaplain General’s policy with regard to new appointments in the SANDF is that a denomination is entitled to appoint one minister per 500 uniform members of that denomination to the SANDF. The Chaplain General has the responsibility to inform the denomination through its Liaison Chaplain that a vacancy exists for a chaplain of that particular denomination. The denomination presents a candidate to the Chaplain General who then proceeds with the military selection process.

The following MCSA process is suggested to help those ministers who feel a calling to the Chaplaincy, and to help the Church appoint the best candidates for the job:

a.         An ordained minister who feels a calling to the Chaplaincy first approaches the Bishop of the District in which he or she is serving. The Bishop must interview the person to explore the calling the particular minister is experiencing. The Bishop must ensure that the minister is in good standing in the circuit which he or she is serving and there are no outstanding assessments or any other issues that are pressurising the minister to leave the circuit appointment. The Bishop recommends the minister to the Connexional Committee on Military Chaplaincy (CCMC).

 

b.        The minister who is recommended by the District Bishop is interviewed by the CCMC. If the CCMC is satisfied that the minister is a suitable candidate, the minister’s name is forwarded to the Chaplain General when a vacancy for a MCSA minister has been communicated to the CCMC through the MCSA Liaison Chaplain. The CCMC must be aware that the Chaplain General has to meet certain SANDF criteria when appointing new chaplains, viz. age, gender, race and medical fitness. The Chaplain General may also be looking for a candidate with a particular set of skills, depending on the vacancy that exists. It is suggested that the Liaison Chaplain obtain from the Chaplain General a profile of the candidate for a particular vacancy in the Chaplaincy so that the CCMC can present the MCSA’s best candidate for that vacancy to the Chaplain General.

 

c.         The Chaplain General does not have the right to recruit MCSA ministers directly without the knowledge of the CCMC, neither may ministers apply directly to the Chaplain General.

 

 

MINISTERS SERVING AS CHAPLAINS

 

Ministers serving in the SANDF are currently stationed in Circuit Number 1413 and appear in the list of Stations as an “N.B.” in the circuits in which they reside. They remain in full connexion and their Supernumerary Fund accounts are regarded as being paid-up for the time they will spend serving as chaplains. Ministers appointed as chaplains are expected to keep strong links with the Church through the circuits in which they reside. This means that chaplains can be utilised for pastoral, preaching, sacramental and other duties in a part-time capacity, but with the understanding that official chaplain’s duties always take precedence over any Circuit involvement or duty.

 

In practical terms this means that chaplains must become full members of the circuit staff in which they reside. Chaplains perform pastoral and other duties under the direction of the Circuit Superintendent. Chaplains are primarily accountable to the Superintendent Minister and then to the District Bishop for the execution of their pastoral duties within the circuit. Chaplains are required to attend staff meetings, Circuit Quarterly Meetings, synods and retreats (up to a maximum of ten days special leave per annum is allowed by the Chaplain General for chaplains to attend synods and retreats.) Circuits are not assessed for the chaplains residing within their boundaries but are expected to fund the attendance of chaplains at synods and retreats. Circuits that cannot afford to pay synod and retreat fees must make this known to the chaplain and to the Bishop so that an arrangement can be made. Any allowances paid to chaplains for services rendered must be negotiated at Circuit level and must be declared to the Methodist Connexional Office so that the necessary tax administration can be done.

 

Chaplains are accountable for their work in the SANDF primarily to the Chaplain General, but also to the Church. Chaplains are required to submit an annual report on their work within the SANDF and circuit to the Synod to which they belong. Chaplains are primarily responsible to the Circuit Superintendent and accountable to the local Circuit Quarterly Meeting (CQM) for the ministry they exercise in the circuit. The following procedure is suggested as a way to keep chaplains accountable to the Church:

 

a.          Ministers are invited to serve as chaplains by the CCMC in the same way that any other minister is invited to labour by a Circuit Quarterly Meeting. The only difference is that ministers are invited for an initial period of 10 years, so that the minister does not suffer a loss of GEPF benefits. After the initial 10 year invitation has lapsed, invitations must be renewed annually in line with invitations in the rest of the Connexion. Ministers who wish to extend their invitations as chaplains shall indicate this to the CCMC through the Liaison Chaplain. The Bishop of the District in which the chaplain resides shall make a recommendation to the CCMC after having conducted an interview with the minister, and in consultation with the chaplain’s local Superintendent Minister. The CCMC has the right to conduct its own interview when considering the continued invitation of a minister to labour as a chaplain. Those ministers who enter the Chaplaincy with the intention not to serve a full 10 years will be invited for the period they wish to serve, but not less than 5 years. These ministers must be encouraged to make ad hoc contributions to the Supernumerary Fund to offset the loss of the full GEPF actuarial benefit on resignation from the SANDF.

 

b.          Ministers appointed as chaplains shall be required to attend all Circuit Staff Meetings, CQMs, District Synods and District Retreats.

 

c.          Ministers appointed as chaplains shall exercise some form of circuit ministry but with the understanding that the SANDF always has first call on the services of its chaplains. Chaplains shall be available to serve on District and Connexional structures, and shall also be considered to superintend a circuit should the need arise.

 

d.          Ministers appointed as chaplains shall submit reports on their ministry in the SANDF and in the local circuit both to the Synod and to the CCMC through the Liaison Chaplain.

 

e.         The Superintendent Minister of the circuit in which a chaplain resides shall submit a brief report on the ministry exercised by the chaplain in the circuit to the District Bishop and to the CCMC. It is suggested that the CCMC draft a standard template for this purpose.

 

f.          The Bishop of the District in which a minister appointed as a chaplain shall conduct an annual Review of Ministry with that minister, the report of which to be forwarded to the CCMC. At the discretion of the Bishop, this function may be delegated to the Superintendent Minister of the circuit in which the chaplain resides.

 

g.         The Liaison Chaplain shall maintain contact with the office of the Chaplain General regarding all possible transfers or promotions of MCSA chaplains. Similarly, the office of the Chaplain General shall inform the Liaison Chaplain regarding the under-performance or poor discipline of any MCSA chaplain. All such information is to be communicated by the Liaison Chaplain to the CCMC for information and possible action.

 

h.         The Liaison Chaplain is to be informed by the office of the Chaplain General of any MCSA chaplain who has been charged militarily under the Military Disciplinary Code. The CCMC will conduct its own investigation and will make recommendations to the Presiding Bishop with regard to the MCSA disciplinary procedures to be instituted against the minister.

 

i.          The Liaison Chaplain is to inform the office of the Chaplain General of any MCSA chaplain who is facing disciplinary action by the MCSA. When an MCSA chaplain is suspended by the Presiding Bishop, the CCMC must request the Chaplain General to place that chaplain on special leave pending the outcome of the MCSA disciplinary action instituted against that minister.

 

j.          The CCMC is to inform the Chaplain General immediately should a chaplain be discontinued by the MCSA. All MCSA chaplains are to give a written contractual undertaking that they will resign from the SANDF should they be discontinued from the ministry of the MCSA.

 

 

CHAPLAINS RETURNING TO CIRCUIT

 

Ministers serving as chaplains are under the discipline of the MCSA, which means that the Church has the right to station a minister serving as a chaplain back into a normal circuit appointment at any time. It is however desirable that a minister serving as a chaplain is left in the SANDF for a minimum period of 10 years, so that his or her full actuarial benefit accrued in the GEPF is not lost. A chaplain returning to a normal circuit appointment shall resign from the SANDF at least one month in advance of the appointment to the circuit. The minister shall transfer his or her full GEPF actuarial benefit into the Supernumerary Fund so that pension benefits remain intact and uncompromised. The only exception to this is when a chaplain has already reached pensionable age in the SANDF (55 to 60) and takes early or normal retirement. Those ministers who do not complete 10 years service in the SANDF shall transfer their reduced actuarial benefit into the Supernumerary Fund and must consult a financial planner to strategise a way to ameliorate the negative impact of the loss of their full GEPF benefit.

 

Chaplains wishing to return to a normal circuit appointment must give timeous notice of their intention to the CCMC and to the local Bishop. Such a minister then becomes eligible for invitation and stationing as any other minister in the Connexion. It must be recognised that any minister who has been out of an active circuit appointment and has become accustomed to the military with its management culture, will need some time to readjust and orientate him or herself back into normal circuit life. The following procedure is recommended:

 

a.          A chaplain returning to a normal circuit appointment will be debriefed by a senior minister in the District, preferably by a minister who previously served as a chaplain.

 

b.          A chaplain returning to circuit will be appointed a mentor for 1 year. This mentor should preferably be the same minister who deals with the debriefing of the chaplain. Issues that will need to be addressed during the mentorship include changes to procedures and structures that have occurred while the minister was serving as a chaplain. It is suggested that the CCMC in consultation with the Bishops develop a debriefing and mentorship plan for all chaplains returning to circuit appointments.

 

c.          A chaplain returning to circuit should not be appointed as a Circuit Superintendent for the first year.

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

There are a number of issues raised that require attention at a number of levels:

 

a.         The Church-State Agreement needs to be revised and approved by the Conference and the Chaplain General.

 

             b.         Laws & Discipline needs to be revised.

 

c.         The CCMC needs to revise its procedures with regard to the recruiting of ministers for the Chaplaincy and also the procedures for its relationship with serving chaplains. These procedures must be published in the Minutes of Conference.

 

d.         The Liaison Chaplain plays a critical and pivotal role in this process. His or her role must be written in the form of a Job Description and communicated to the office of the Chaplain General.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Methodist ministers serving as chaplains in the SANDF have the privilege to serve across denominational and faith boundaries as ambassadors of the Master who has called them and of the Church that has ordained them. They have to remain accountable to the MCSA during their time serving in the SANDF and must maintain strong links with the Church. The Church has the tremendous and careful task to ensure that suitable and appropriate ministers are appointed, that those who are appointed are held accountable, and to ensure that those returning to normal circuit appointments are reintegrated smoothly and in a manner that benefits both the minister and the Church.

 

It is hoped that these thoughts will stimulate further thought and debate. May God grant us wisdom and courage so that His Kingdom may continue to be realised amongst us.

 

 

CHAPLAIN ANDREW TREU

RUGBY TRANSFORMATION: REVOLUTION OR RECONCILIATION?

Every now and again the issue of transformation in rugby crops up. It seems to me that it follows a predictable pattern. Someone (usually in government) notices the apparent lack of transformation in rugby and enquiries are made. This is usually followed by defensive rugby bosses scurrying to prove they have a number of development projects in place and that there are up and coming players of colour in all the provincial squads and a few in the national squad. This seems to quell the furore temporarily, until the next time. The reality however, is that rugby continues to be a predominantly white sport: that is certainly the impression I get when I flip through the channels broadcasting South African matches on any given sporting weekend.

I support the rugby development efforts being made in communities where rugby is an unknown sport. I am sure there are many dedicated people trying their best to make a difference. Their efforts must be supported and strengthened. Rugby development needs to be expanded further and marketed at grassroots level in schools and communities. Provincial squads and the national squad must be intentional in their selection of players of colour. If they are unwilling or resistant to that selection, I support government intervention as a last resort to make it happen. Taking such a drastic measure is undesirable as it creates resistance and forces people into entrenched positions from which it becomes well nigh impossible to reconcile opposing points of view. That drastic step I think can be prevented if we begin to address the deeper issues surrounding rugby as a sport in our country.

Before we begin to consider those deeper issues, please allow me to digress for a moment to share some of my own history with rugby. I have never really been a big rugby fan. At school I played soccer and cricket. Rugby to me seemed to glorify violence and brute force, and I used that as my rationale for not being a big fan. I used to watch the occasional game on television and I kept abreast of the various competitions. It was around 1986 or 1987 I made a deliberate decision to stop watching rugby. I made the decision after reading a book by Frederik van Zyl Slabbert (I think it was The Last White Parliament). In the book he tells of his bold and unpopular decision to stop playing rugby.

The essence of Van Zyl Slabbert's argument was that rugby had become a symbol of Afrikaner nationalism. He was referring to the worst manifestation of Afrikaner nationalism in the form of apartheid. Rugby had become the sport that united the volk, that proved the physical and sporting superiority of the white Afrikaner. Rugby was a part and parcel of Afrikaner identity. Rugby was followed with devotion and fervour, akin to a national religion. Even in the deepest years of apartheid rugby was played at international level. Foreign teams were welcomed to South Africa and their presence celebrated as a triumph over politics and sanctions, in much the same way that Hitler got away with hosting the 1936 Olympic Games. International teams were sensitive to the apartheid regime in that they discreetly refrained from sending players of colour to play against our whites only teams. White English speakers were welcome to play rugby, but it was always on the terms of the Afrikaner Broederbond appointed rugby bosses.

What Van Zyl Slabbert said struck a chord with me and I decided that I could not watch a sport that was to all intents and purposes a bastion of apartheid. Admittedly it was an easy decision. It would have been a lot more difficult were I a huge fan or an active participant. The decision to stop watching rugby has been difficult to reverse. I still struggle to watch because to me it seems rugby still has those undertones of white nationalism.

Rugby had a watershed moment in 1995 when the World Cup was hosted in South Africa. As a nation we were riding the crest of the wave: full scale civil war had been narrowly averted, we had a President who preached reconciliation and South Africa was revered as the role model of a relatively peaceful transition to democracy. President Mandela understood the importance of rugby to the white community and saw the World Cup Final game as a powerful opportunity for national reconciliation, to reach out to the white community. The images of a genuinely proud and elated President Mandela in his Springbok rugby jersey embracing Francois Pienaar, holding the trophy aloft, is an image etched in the memories of all who watched that game (and yes, I did watch the game!). In that moment our President united the nation. It was a defining moment for rugby and it presented a genuine opportunity for the game to become inclusive, to promote healing and reconciliation in our nation. That opportunity was lost and lost badly.

The fundamental problem as I see it, is that transformation has been interpreted on both the side of the government and on the side of the rugby bosses, as getting the racial balance right. There is the constant cry from government that there needs to be more black players, that the game must become more representative. There are a lot more black players and coaches than there were ten years ago, but the sport remains predominantly white. Recently there have been threats to force representivity, which has been met with fierce resistance. To many in government, the only way to remedy the situation is through a rugby revolution. I would suggest that this would not be the appropriate way forward for now, that there may be a way to use rugby transformation as an act of nation building and reconciliation. I do not think it is too late to capitalise on the foundation laid by Mr Mandela in 1995.

It seems to me that since 1994, rugby has morphed itself into a sport that now represents a form of nationalism that encompasses mother tongue English and Afrikaans whites and so called coloureds. Black players are in the minority and are welcome to play, as long as they stay in the minority. Somehow we need to move beyond the situation where people feel threatened by black players to the point where black players are embraced and welcomed for the good of the sport and of the nation.

 

The first step is an acknowledgement on all sides of the role rugby played in Afrikaner and white nationalism. It seems to me in the white community there is a blanket amnesia about apartheid. There is a constant refrain in the white community that, “we need to move on,” that apartheid is something of the forgotten past. Any reminder of our apartheid past is met with anger, resentment and denial. This apartheid amnesia seems to have blocked out the horrors of our apartheid past and how the black majority suffered enormously at the hands of the white minority. Very few white people followed the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Very few white people have made the effort to face the pain of our past. Very few white people have made the effort to familiarise themselves with the history of the struggle against apartheid. Only a minority of those who served in the security forces that enforced apartheid in brutal and cruel ways have spoken out. Most remain silent. I believe this amnesia and denial is a coping mechanism to escape having to face the pain and the guilt of the past.

 

I believe one of the keys to break the amnesia and silence, to talk about the past, allowing stories to be told, is rugby. Let's allow the white community to talk about rugby, about rugby history, about rugby heroes, about sanction busting international rugby. I am optimistic and perhaps even naïve enough to believe that our black community will listen and celebrate those stories. Once we're talking, let's hear the black voices (especially those in the Eastern Cape) who love the game. Let's hear the sad stories of those talented black players, who could never realise their full rugby potential due to apartheid. Then we need to be big enough and courageous enough to own up to how rugby was used to undergird apartheid, how it alienated and separated black and white communities from one another, and how it continues to infect and pervert the game. Only then can we apologise and ask for forgiveness. This rugby mini TRC is the first step. It cannot be skipped or glossed over, no matter how uncomfortable or painful.

The second step is to reach out to one another, to find meaningful ways where rugby can become an agent of reconciliation, a fresh symbol of a united South Africa, building on that moment with President Mandela at the Rugby World Cup in 1995. This is where most of the work will have to be done. We will have to talk to one another to see what will work best. Good white intentions will have to be tempered so that they do not come across as patronising. Black suspicions will need to be addressed and allayed with some very good and honest marketing. I suspect that the most innovative ideas will come from our youth, especially those of the so called “born free” generation who carry the least amount of baggage from our past. Schools will have to play a leading role. Already in the old Model C schools that offer rugby as a sport, there are many very talented black players who are making an impact on schools rugby. One approach might be to twin such a school with a township school that does not offer rugby to provide opportunities for those interested to play the game. Rugby talent at schools level must be nurtured in such a way that it feeds into the higher levels of the game. Talented players could be incentivised with scholarships to move onto college and university rugby. Similarly, rugby clubs must be reaching across the divides, finding innovative ways to market the sport in communities where rugby has never been played.

The biggest challenge is going to be at the provincial, franchise and national levels where one has to deal with professional players and professional administrators. Once a person is paid to do a job, he or she has a vested interest in that job, which is natural and to be expected. If rugby transformation is perceived as a threat to their livelihoods, stern resistance is to be expected. A way forward here would be to seek a “buy in” commitment from both players and administrators in such a way that their livelihoods are not threatened. They must be convinced that we are not only talking about rugby transformation, but also nation building and national reconciliation. Players' unions will need to be consulted and brought on board. There will of course be those who will not buy in, who will reject all efforts at meaningful transformation. They unfortunately will have to be asked to leave to make space for those who are true patriots (no matter the colour of their skin), who have both rugby and nation building close to their hearts.

 

President Mandela in 1995 united the nation around the game of rugby. Let's recapture that moment and use it as an opportunity for reconciliation. Let's transform the game in such a way that the wounds of the past are healed and people reach across the racial divides to turn rugby into a powerful symbol of a truly united, non-racial South Africa. I'm looking forward to watching rugby again!

SANDU: HERE I STAND

I resigned my membership of the SA National Defence Union (SANDU) on 1 April 2013. A number of people have asked me for my reasons. Here is my letter of resignation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                        Sand River Base

                                                                                                        Kruger National Park
                                                                                                        1 April 2013
SA National Defence Union
Pretoria

Sir/Madam,

RESIGNATION SANDU MEMBERSHIP

I hereby wish to tender my resignation with immediate effect as a member of the SA National Defence Union. I do so with deep regret and after much thought and reflection on the matter.

I joined SANDU circa 2003 for a few reasons. The first reason was selfish. At the time I felt uncertain of my own future in the SANDF and thought it would be a good idea to have some kind of backup should I need it. The other reason I joined is that I supported the idea of having unions in the SANDF. Unions had played a major role in our transition to democracy and I felt (as I still do) that they have an important role to play in helping to shape our young democracy. I also joined out of a genuine concern for the terrible conditions under which soldiers are asked to do their work and where they are expected to live. I was and still am concerned at how the underfunding of the Defence Force has eroded our capabilities and has had a profoundly negative impact on morale. I am at the front line when it comes to how badly people are off in the SANDF. I see how people struggle to make ends meet and I see how they struggle at work with woefully inadequate and outdated resources. I see how soldiers are expected to live in dilapidated and unhygienic barracks. I see how families are expected to live in houses that are in a terrible state of neglect and disrepair. I see how commanding officers struggle to fulfil their duties and how they struggle to motivate their members with the few resources they have at their disposal. I have seen how dedicated colleagues and fellow professionals in the SANDF have become demotivated and have left for the private sector. The political organisation to which I belong supported my constitutional right to belong to the union of my choice and I have never felt a conflict of interest between my membership of the union and my membership of the political party. I defended SANDU after the 2009 Union Buildings incident as I felt the plight of soldiers had at long last been brought into the public domain. I was prepared to risk my career for SANDU when in 2009 we chaplains were asked to resign our membership, I refused and defended my right to belong to a union.

I expect my union to be fighting on my behalf and on the behalf of our soldiers on a number of issues. I expect my union to be fighting for better working conditions, better equipment, better housing and better benefits. I expect my union to be keeping the plight of soldiers in the public domain in such a way that sympathy not antipathy is evoked. I expect my union to be at the forefront lobbying for a bigger slice of the GDP. I expect my union to be vocal when the defence budget shrinks and conditions worsen for soldiers. I expect my union to be highlighting the effects of the underfunding of the SANDF. I expect my union to be engaging in vigorous debate with those who oppose defence spending. I expect my union to be lobbying members of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and other influential members of parliament across party political platforms. I expect my union to be engaging with the Minister and the Secretary of Defence, lobbying on behalf of soldiers. I expect my union to be in discussion with the office of the Military Ombudsman to help define roles and perhaps even to forge some kind of partnership. I expect my union to be engaging at an academic level with institutions, think-tanks and universities where these matters are discussed and researched. I expect my union to be presenting papers at academic colloquia and submitting papers to academic journals. I expect my union to be writing articles in newspapers and online forums, specifically to debate defence spending, the state of equipment and the service conditions of soldiers. I expect my union to present a detailed and comprehensive submission on the latest Defence Review. I expect my union to be involved when salaries and benefits are negotiated, fighting on behalf of soldiers. I expect my union to be fighting the insidious practice of linking rank to salary. I expect my union to be fighting on behalf of soldiers who have been abused or disadvantaged by their superiors. Most of all I expect my union to be consulting the rank and file members of SANDU on the issues which affect them.

Sadly on most of the above issues SANDU seems to be absent. I am only aware of SANDU when it comes to salary negotiations and occasionally when the union takes up the cudgels on behalf of a soldier who has suffered some kind of injustice. It is a role I have appreciated SANDU playing and I applaud its victories. I do however expect a lot more and find myself in the position where to me SANDU seems to be lacking. I am not aware of SANDU having taken a position on Defence spending, neither am I aware of its involvement in any debate on the matter. I am not aware of the union having taken the matter of the portion of GDP to be spent on Defence into the public domain for debate or even for information. The union seems to have taken a combative and alienating approach to the Portfolio Committee. A similar approach seems to have been taken with the Minister and the Secretary for Defence. I am not aware of any academic submission by the union, nor am I aware of its participation in any discourse at that level. I am not aware of any submission to the Defence Review. I am not aware of the union having consulted its members on the issues which affect them. I have never met my shop steward nor have I ever been invited to attend a union meeting. Notwithstanding all the above, I was still prepared to retain my membership of the union until the recent tragic events in the CAR unfolded.

It is SANDU's reaction to and the way in which it has dealt with the tragic events in the CAR that now leave me with no other option but to resign my membership. We had soldiers in the CAR under SANDF command as negotiated with the CAR government at that time. Our soldiers were attacked and they fought well and they fought bravely. The first public reaction from the union was on Twitter with the secretary's comments, “Zuma this is on you.” The next reaction was a statement calling for the immediate withdrawal of our soldiers from the CAR. I was disturbed and my disquiet began. There was no acknowledgement of the loss of human life nor was any attempt made to sympathise with those who had lost loved ones. There was no attempt by SANDU, as far as I am aware, to assist the dependants of those who had died or to highlight their plight with regard to the benefits they will receive. This to me is deeply disrespectful of those who have died. The outburst against the Commander in Chief was followed by another on Twitter against the CSANDF with a call for his resignation. It seems to me the union has forgotten that soldiers are under command and pledge their allegiance to their superiors. In my interaction with soldiers on the ground both the Commander in Chief and the CSANDF are held in very high esteem. One of my soldiers (who is a SANDU member) described the union as having become “rude” which indicates to me a dissonance between the union and its rank and file members. The calls for the withdrawal of soldiers from the CAR reflects a similar dissonance between the union and its members. The union certainly does not reflect my views on the CAR matter and it did not have a mandate from its members to make such statements. My experience of soldiers on the ground is an overwhelming support for staying in the CAR. A number of soldiers immediately made themselves available for deployment to the CAR, including me. The call for a withdrawal of soldiers also to my mind seems to be an incitement to mutiny, perhaps not in the legal sense but it certainly feels that way. I cannot help but get the feeling that the union is using the publicity gained for promoting personal political views and no longer reflects the views of its members.

The last straw for me was the decision to sue the SANDF over the remarks expressed by its spokesman concerning SANDU and SANDU's reaction to his statement on 27 March. I cannot allow my union subscription to be used for spurious litigation. The SANDF statement may be regarded as clumsy and inarticulate, but the perception of SANDU as being anti transformation and supportive of an old order agenda in the SANDF must be taken very seriously by the union. That perception may have some validity when the fact is that those who are vociferous in their opposition today to the SANDF were silent in the past when it came to the SADF. Similarly their voices were silent when there was widespread resistance to transformation by old SADF members after the SANDF was formed in 1995. I will illustrate this with some of my own experiences. I was designated for conscription into the SADF at the age of 16. While a student at Wits University I joined the End Conscription Campaign as I viewed the apartheid government of the day as illegitimate and could not see myself fighting for it. After the ECC was banned there was no other voice in the country that supported us. To the white community we were an anathema and to the black community our issue was small and insignificant compared to the scale of the struggle against apartheid. When eventually at the age of 28 I was forced through various circumstances to report for National Service, there was no voice inside or outside the SADF except my church, to support me and others in a similar position. When I refused to carry a weapon and was made to drill with a broomstick handle, the only support I had was from my church. When I joined the SANDF in 1996 I found myself having to do battle with those who resisted change and who were anti transformation. Once again I found myself isolated and alone. The point is that those who are vociferous in their opposition today were silent in the past, and however one looks at it, it casts aspersions on their present motives and to a large extent invalidates or even negates their present activism.

I think too that SANDU has missed some important opportunities when it comes to the CAR events. There was an opportunity by SANDU to partner with the SANDF to highlight the state of our equipment and the cumulative effects of Defence underfunding. There was an opportunity to highlight how badly off dependants are after the death of a member in service. There was an opportunity for the union to show love and compassion, but that too was missed.

I do not wish my resignation to be viewed as a personal attack on any member of SANDU staff. Neither do I wish to alienate myself from any SANDU staff member at a personal level. Should the circumstances change I would consider rejoining the union. For now however, my decision to resign remains steadfast. I shall be informing my Human Resources functionary accordingly so that the necessary administrative actions can be taken.

Yours faithfully,

CHAPLAIN A.J. TREU

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINKS TO SANDU STATEMENTS:

24 March: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rjdbc4

25 March: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rjdo3s

27 March: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rjfd1d

SANDU TWITTER FEED:

 

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

 On Friday the 8^th of March it was International Women's Day (IWD). It is a day I could not celebrate. IWD in 2013 felt very different to the other Women's Days we have celebrated. The brutal rape and murder of Anene Booysen and the killing of Reeva Steenkamp by her boyfriend hang like a pall over us as a nation. These are only two of the many incidents of violence against women that occur in our nation on a daily basis. I cannot celebrate when I think of women in South Africa. On the contrary, I become depressed and pensive. It's surely time that we as a nation, as ordinary citizens, rolled up our sleeves on this matter and did something. Here I am not talking about useless campaigns where we sign petitions or change our Facebook statuses or make impassioned pleas on Twitter, which David Bullard in his insightful article calls, “little more than politically correct breast beating which does little to confront the real issues.”ⁱ

So what are we do to? Allow me to digress for a moment to tell some of my own stories. These stories (all of them really happened) will give you an insight into some of my own experiences over the years, to put my thoughts on the matter into context. I have deliberately excluded any mention of race as I do not want the matter of race to cloud the issue. Suffice it to say that the stories I tell are of people of all races. These stories are a small sample of the situations I have dealt with or have been involved with over the years.

MY STORIES

My first experience of violence against women was as a preschool child. We lived in a typical middle class white suburb. One evening after my bedtime I was awakened to the sounds of a woman calling for help. The woman was our neighbour across the road who was being beaten by her husband. I heard my mother urging my father to “do something.” My father was a big, strapping and physically strong man who believed that a man was never to lift his hands to a woman. He duly went across the road and I assume sorted out the abusive husband with his fists. The next day there was a policeman at the door and a few days after that I saw my father wearing a suit for the first time in my life on his way to court. The man across the road had laid a charge of assault against my father and the star witness in the case was the very woman who had called for help. The presiding magistrate threw the case out of court and my father was a free man. The next time the woman across the road called for help, my parents pretended not to hear.

Then there was the young, newly married woman whom I was asked to go and see after her husband had beaten her. She met me at the door. Both eyes were swollen shut and she was badly bruised. The husband fearing that she might take flight, had locked all they owned (including the curtains) in one of the bedrooms and had taken the key with him to work. He did however leave the dirty laundry and some washing powder in the bathroom so that she could do the washing while he was at work. When I arrived she was busy washing clothes by hand in the bath. We stood in the empty lounge and the walls echoed as she told how he had beaten her the night before during an argument. She told me she was desperate to leave to go to her mother, that she did not want to lay a charge, that she just wanted to leave and put it all behind her. To cut a long story short, I helped her to retrieve her possessions and arranged a lift for her to her mother. Three weeks later she was back, seemingly happier than ever, holding her husband's hand and looking him adoringly in the eye. I was accused of trying to break up their home and their marriage.

Then there was the Saturday afternoon I was called to the home of a couple who were involved in a domestic dispute. I arrived at the time the husband was shouting and throwing glasses and crockery at his wife. There were shards of glass all over the place and there was blood everywhere from the cuts he had sustained on his own feet as he was barefoot at the time. I managed to calm the situation and subsequently became involved at a therapeutic level with this couple. It emerged in the sessions that the husband regularly abused his wife. His favourite form of abuse was to push his wife's head into the toilet bowl and then to flush. She was adamant that she would never leave him because, in her words, “I love him too much.” We could not move further than that no matter how hard I tried. I was flummoxed, felt I had hit an impasse, decided to terminate my intervention and to refer them to someone else. They never attended any appointments with the therapist to whom I had made the referral.

Then there was the evening I was called out to a domestic dispute involving a gun. I arrived to find the husband sitting at the dining room table, his pistol lying on the table next to him and his wife lovingly serving him supper. Apart from the gun on the table, everything seemed to be normal. They tried to reassure me that they had had a small misunderstanding but that all had been settled. Luckily the astute military policeman I had taken along with me had been doing some investigating of his own while I was talking to the couple, and the truth soon emerged. Earlier in the evening there had been an argument between him and his wife. Their three daughters aged 16, 12 and 8 became involved in the argument and that is when he produced his pistol threatening to shoot those who dissented. It was at that point that the eldest daughter, in fear of her own life and those of her sisters, bundled her sisters into the family vehicle and drove off to safety. He had stood in the road firing shots at the fleeing vehicle but miraculously, nobody was hurt. I eventually, with the help of the policeman, found the children and listened to their side of the story. I will never forget the beautiful 8 year old girl telling me with innocent wide-eyed amazement that, “Uncle! I saw the flame coming out of the gun!” The wife refused to corroborate any of what the children had said and would not allow them to make any formal statements. She insisted that there had been a “small misunderstanding,” that all had been resolved, and refused to make a formal statement of her own. To cut a very long story short, I had the children removed into foster care that evening, which was ratified in court the next morning. He was charged for the discharge of a firearm in public and had his gun licence revoked. There were a few subsequent incidents to this one with this couple but I should probably save those stories for my memoirs!

Then there was the morning I was called out to the casualty department at the hospital. They had admitted and were treating a female rape victim. She was a young, newly married woman. Her husband was away on deployment and had asked his best friend to look after his wife while he was away. This best friend had arrived at the home of the woman the previous evening with a take-away meal and some bottles of alcohol. They had enjoyed the meal together and had drunk a lot of alcohol. She passed out from the excessive alcohol. She remembered waking up in a daze with the man on top of her pushing himself into her. She asked him to stop and tried to push him off but could not. After he left she called one of her friends who brought her to the hospital. She was in shock and was displaying all the typical signs of having been raped. The doctor treating her was thorough. He spent the best part of three hours conducting his examination and compiling the rape kit. She was adamant that she wanted to press charges against the man who had raped her. To cut another long story short, the case never made it to court. There were no visible signs of rape or of a struggle. The man said the sex was consensual and there was nothing except her word to prove otherwise.

Then there was the man living in the room next to me on one of my deployments. He was having a relationship with one of the female members and was entertaining her in his room in the evenings. One evening I woke up to noises that I recognised as someone being assaulted. When I was fully awake there was only the sound of voices – two people talking in the room next door. The next day I asked the woman if she had been assaulted, but she denied it. About a week after that, once more I was awoken to the same noise. This time however, the woman came out of the room running away from the man screaming. He made no attempt to follow her and she later refused to lay a complaint against the man but she did cut all ties with the man. It could not have been more than two evenings after this incident that there was another woman knocking at his door. I overheard her telling him how much she admired him and how strong he was and that she had fallen in love with him the first day she had seen him. Needless to say, the pattern soon repeated itself. A week or so later I heard noises of her too being beaten followed by the sound of voices talking. A week or so after that there was pandemonium one evening when he assaulted her again and locked the door to prevent her from leaving. She screamed for help, people arrived to intervene and she was removed from the room so badly hurt that she could not walk. He was subsequently arrested by the military police and charged with assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm. She was examined by the district surgeon and made a statement. To cut this long story short, she later recanted her statement, they were both sent back home and shortly thereafter they were married! The case against him is still pending but the chances are very slender that anything will come of it.

I will tell one last story just to confuse the issue a little and to demonstrate how complex this issue really gets.

Then there was the young couple who had come to see me to seek help with their relationship. There were problems with communication and issues regarding gender roles in the relationship. After three sessions with the couple I could not understand what the problem was – it seemed to me we were going around in circles and weren't making any headway at all. One evening as I was falling asleep it struck me like a bolt of lightning. I had not been able to understand what was happening because I was looking at the situation from the perspective of my own preconceptions and prejudices. The next morning I asked the man to come and see me in my office. I asked him this question: “Is she hitting you?” The tears welled up in his eyes. I asked him to lift up his shirt for me. He wept tears of shame as he showed me the bruises. She used to beat him with a hockey stick – he was black and blue. He had never retaliated and his shame kept him from telling anyone. To cut this long story short, once the dark secret was out, the marriage disintegrated and they were divorced shortly thereafter.

THE ISSUE AT HAND

Let us however get back to the issue of violence against women. What can we do? How can we even begin to address the issue? How can I make a real and a meaningful difference? In each of the stories I have told I have felt helpless to do anything more than to stand on the sidelines and watch how things get worse. I must confess I have developed a high tolerance for the violence and abuse against women I see and hear about. There is very little that can shock me and that makes me feel guilty and even somehow complicit.

I support the efforts being made at the judicial level to establish special courts and to prioritise gender based violence cases. I support the efforts being made by the SAPS to train officers to handle such cases. These efforts however, laudable as they are, I do not believe are going to solve the problem. We may argue that prompt and efficient justice will act as a deterrent to those contemplating acts of violence against women, but that argument falls flat on the basis of evidence that not even the death penalty offers any deterrence against crime. We need to get to the root causes or else we will simply be treating the symptoms and not solving the problem.

I do not find it helpful either to conflate the issue of violence against women as told in the stories above, with the issue of the brutal rapes and murders of those such as Anene Booysen. They are perhaps two sides of the same coin but I find it difficult and confusing to deal with the two issues together. Surely the dynamics and the drivers of these two issues are different? The rape and murder of Anene Booysen has the dynamics of poor education, unemployment, drug abuse, frustration, hopelessness and men emasculated by their circumstances brutally trying to assert themselves and take out their frustrations violently on their victim. The stories I have told above do have some of those elements but to me are not in the same category as Anene Booysen's gang-rape and murder. I would like to talk about the violence against women we see in our own lives and in the lives of those around us that we see every day – the acts of violence that we become accustomed to and live with. To talk about both issues at the same time seems to me to provide an easy way of projecting the issue away from ourselves and in that way to escape any guilt or culpability. It's easy to say I'm not a brutal rapist but not as easy to say that I am not guilty of the other forms of violence against women or the prejudice that leads to the violence against women.

Violence against women has many shapes and forms, it is not just physical violence. The abuse may be verbal where the man asserts his power over the woman with words. This in turn leads to emotional abuse where the woman's sense of self-worth is attacked and she is made to feel less than human. There is economic abuse where the woman is economically dependent on the man and where the man uses that power to assert himself in such a way that the woman feels she has no choice but to submit herself to the man's will and whims. In a landmark study conducted in Cape Town in 1999, the Medical Research Council (MRC) found that 43.6% of the men interviewed had in the past ten years abused women. Of these who admitted abuse, emotional abuse was the most common at 90.3% followed by verbal abuse at 82.9%, physical abuse at 41.4%, economic abuse at 24.7% and sexual abuse at 9.2%.^I  The interesting part of the study concerns the reasons given for the conflict between men and women. The major factors that caused conflict were when the man felt his position and authority in the home were being threatened. Abuse was very likely if the woman “sat on his head” or “spoke back” or if the man suspected the woman of having affairs with other men. I concede it is wrong to use this study to generalise to the South African general population in 2013, but it does give us a good idea of the patterns of abuse in men's relationships with women.

So what can we do? How can we turn this terrible blight on us as a nation around? I think there are two areas that we need to address as a starting point: the issue of patriarchy and gender roles, and the issue of violence as a way to solve our conflicts. We need to start somewhere and we need to do this together. There have been campaigns that target women and there have been campaigns that target men, but I think the time has come for us to be talking about these issues together as men and women in our homes, our schools and educational institutions, our workplaces, our communities and in our various organisations.

PATRIARCHY & GENDER ROLES

We live in a deeply patriarchal society. I grew up in a home where my father was the person who took decisions regarding the home and where my mother was the one who cared for the children, cooked the meals and kept the home tidy. We find this patriarchy across all races and cultures in South Africa, indeed it seems to be very deeply entrenched in us. We can debate the origins of this patriarchy and discuss the varied roles of culture and religion in forming us as we are, but it is in all of us. There have been huge strides in our society where we have legislation that prohibits discrimination and we have women in important leadership roles in all spheres of our society, but there is no escaping the patriarchy that still exists. One of the things I do in my job is to facilitate an ethical based HIV prevention course with new recruits to the SANDF. In one of the sessions the participants are asked to role play a family situation where it emerges one of the children is sexually active. In the ten years I have been facilitating this course, every single time I am struck and alarmed at how these young participants of every race and background fall into the roles of the father as the autocratic decision maker and the wife as the submissive partner who has to calm the domestic waters. I have tried to change the dynamics by making the males play the roles of the females and vice versa but this makes it even worse. I always guide the discussion after the role play into a discussion about gender roles but for many of the participants the roles are a given and the discussion a mere spurious distraction. I hear these young people arguing that, “it's my culture” and “our family works like that.” This feeds the fallacies that boys must be tough, they must not cry or show emotion and must display physical prowess to prove their manhood. Similarly, it feeds the fallacy that to solve problems in relationships between men and women, men must be better gentlemen, which Chris Roper calls a “more ethical patriarchy.”ⁱⁱⁱ

Roper in the same article makes the plea that, “patriarchy is going to have to undergo a violent revolution before its proponents can understand that their way of being in the world just doesn't work.” We live in a country where people sacrificed their lives for freedom, but we can never truly be free where we have a deeply patriarchal society that holds men and women in bondage in certain roles and positions. Roper is correct in saying we need a revolution, though I do not agree that the revolution needs to be violent. We need to be working together as men and women. Men need to be challenged about their patriarchal attitudes, prejudices and behaviours. Women need to be challenged about the ways in which they accept patriarchy and are subservient, even to abusive men. The stories I told earlier in this article illustrate how deeply the patriarchy is internalised by both men and women. We must be talking to one another about our own internalised patriarchy in a way that is non-confrontational and enabling.

There needs to be a serious discussion at all levels of our society concerning patriarchy and gender roles where we acknowledge that the way things have worked in the past are no longer appropriate and together to find a new way. This discussion (I have deliberately avoided the word 'debate') needs to take place at all levels of our society. As couples we need to be talking to one another about our respective roles in the relationship. In the home we need to be engaging our children and family to talk about gender roles. Our LGBTI organisations need to be engaged, to help all of us understand how roles work in non-heterosexual relationships so that we can move away from the stereotypically patriarchal and hurtful view that one partner has to play the 'male' role and the other the 'female' role for the relationship to work. Our schools must be having this discussion as part of the Life Skills curriculum and the teachers facilitating those discussions must have been trained so that their own attitudes and prejudices do not obstruct the process. In our workplaces we need to be having the same discussion about how we can identify and eliminate the patriarchy that exists there. In our religious organisations we need to be discussing how we can eliminate patriarchal doctrines and structures to find a theology and structures that are inclusive and affirming of both men and women. In our political and community organisations we need to be having a similar discussion, with the view to expunging policies and structures that are inherently patriarchal. One of the thorny issues that needs to be addressed in our religious, political and community structures is the appropriateness of separate women's organisations. The only place I can see where a separate women's organisation might be appropriate is where that organisation plays an advocacy role to advance the equality of women and the abolishment of patriarchy. If they are not willing or able to fulfil that role, they themselves must be abolished and consigned to the patriarchy scrapheap. At a community level we need to be talking about how our patriarchal, traditional cultural views and structures can be revolutionised in such a way that they too affirm equality for men and women. The media must be involved, especially our national broadcaster, so that we can see, hear, read and speak about the discussion taking place all around us in our society. At government level we need to be having an open and honest discussion with one another concerning the issue of patriarchy and gender roles without it degenerating into petty political point scoring against one another.

VIOLENCE

South Africa is a violent society. Christopher Hope has this devastating insight:

What strikes the newcomer to South Africa is the ubiquity of violence; just beneath the surface of life run rivers of rage. This may be so because, ever since settlers arrived and shot the first local people they met as a way of signalling their future intentions, all contacts have been conflicts. It may be that, after years of enforced racial separation, people have no idea how to reach across the divide. But it is also, I sometimes think, because people actually like it this way.^iv

South Africans pride themselves as being tough. So many of the terms we use in relating to one another are violent or have violent undertones. We threaten to kill or moer or klap or break legs or use a machine gun on one another. We become angry and aggressive on the road when we're driving. Every day people are mugged and robbed. We beat our children even though we know we're not supposed to. Anyone who has been into a casualty ward at a provincial hospital on a weekend evening will have witnessed how we resolve our differences – with guns, knives and fists. In another study conducted by the MRC in 2012, they found that 56% of all female homicides were committed by her intimate partner, with the horrifying reality that every eight hours a woman in South Africa is killed by her intimate partner.^v Very few 'peaceful' protests are ever peaceful – most degenerate into violence and looting. The police invariably retaliate with their own brand of brutal violence, which escalates matters even further. We see violence on our sports fields, on our school grounds, on our streets, on our televisions and in our homes. Gangs fight for turf, taxi operators fight for routes. It is who we are, and as Christopher Hope points out, it seems we enjoy it.

Violence is the way we as South Africans have been relating to one another for centuries. The early white settlers fought wars against various black tribes. The various black tribes waged wars against one another. Once whites had subjugated blacks, the violence continued unabated, physically but also systemically through laws which deprived people of their land and their basic human rights. Apartheid was a system that was inherently violent and relied on violence for its perpetuation. The various liberation movements to fight the apartheid regime did so using their own violent methods but even within their own organisations they used violence to subjugate their own. The SAP and SADF in turn retaliated using extreme violence, but they too used violence within their own organisations to subjugate their own. Knowing where the violence comes from however, does nothing to help us deal with its reality in the present.

We are not officially at war with one another in South Africa any more but we are still fighting. We have violence so etched into us as a nation that it seems natural. It must stop. It has to stop or we are doomed as a nation. We have to find other ways of relating to one another apart from violence. We have to find ways of resolving our differences apart from violence. Once again it must start in the home. In the home we must make a commitment to one another that we will not resort to violence to resolve our differences no matter what or in spite of the role models we had. This must be backed up at community level with workshops and educational programs. Religious organisations and NGOs will need to play a leading role here as the already overstretched government resources will not be able to cope on their own. Schools need to be declared places of non-violence and places where non-violent means of resolving differences are modelled. Similarly, values of mutual respect and ubuntu must be taught and modelled. Bullying by teachers or learners must be identified and rooted out. Our workplaces and sports fields must be places where violence in any form is not tolerated. I am even beginning to think that we need to start having a discussion about contact sports such as wrestling and boxing, and whether those sports are appropriate given the violent nature of our society. Our political organisations and trade unions need to be brought on board here too, especially with regard to helping people voice their protests and concerns in non-violent ways. Every single government department must become involved in this quest for non-violence, especially those in the security cluster. The media will have to play a vital role in terms of the re-education of our nation so that we can hear, see, read and speak about this discussion taking place around us. Government will need to enact legislation that supports these initiatives, for example firearm control and the regulation of the private security industry.

There are other risk factors that exacerbate violence against women, that also must be addressed. The 1999 MRC study showed the following risk factors: substance abuse, low levels of education, a criminal history and poverty. It is obvious that all these factors feed into an already volatile culture of violence in our society. To address all these issues needs a multi-sectoral approach and I believe must be driven from the very top, the Office of the President. Let us however as ordinary citizens not sit back and expect the government to do it all on our behalf.

LET'S DO IT

Indeed, we can no longer sit on the sidelines as critical spectators any more. Let's turn our Twitter and dinner table outrage into something useful, into something that will make a real difference. The two issues of patriarchy and violence can and must be addressed by all of us, men and women working together. Let's start in our homes. Let's examine and interrogate the patriarchy that exists in our own homes. Let's talk about the gender roles in our homes, and broaden that discussion to the rest of our families. Let's talk about the violence in our own homes and the way that it manifests itself amongst us in the home. Let's make a commitment to living a non-violent way of life and finding other means of resolving our domestic disputes. Let's take that same discussion and commitment into our schools, workplaces and the various organisations to which we belong. Let's become involved in the discussions that take place at government level. Let's be prepared to make submissions and inputs when such input is called for. Let's support the government and NGO initiatives that are based on our inputs and commit ourselves to becoming involved at some level.

We can stop the scourge of violence against women if we do it as men and women together. Let's do it!

References:

i   Bullard D (2013). http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=35754

ii   Abrahams N, Jewkes R & Laubsher R (1999). “ I do not believe in democracy in the home”: Men’s relationships with and abuse of women. Cape Town: Medical Research Council.

iii  Roper C. (2013). http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-13-let-them-eat-cock

iv  Hope C (2013). http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-01-00-the-pistorius-killing-the-south-african-shots-heard-all-around

v   Abrahams N, Mathews S, Jewkes R, Martin L.J, & Lombard L (2012). Every eight hours:

Intimate femicide in South Africa 10 years later! Cape Town: Medical Research Council.