Vengeance is an amateurish vision to frustrate progress: iLIVE

Vengeance is an antithesis of progress and development.

What is the measure, in the political sense, of correctness? Anything that serves the greater good or that serves the majority or anything that does less harm to the minorities?

Again, could it mean that correctness in any nation is shaped by history? I intend to crisscross on subliminal issues that seem to delay and compromise the realisation of our true self as the nation.

This depiction tries to interface between what is considered to be correct for us by our political principals, how our political leaders have turned us into cabbages and how I see future from the historical lens. I also intend to show how seditious vengeance is to the creation of a nation that is bigger than itself. Also, vengeance seems to be regressive in nature yet unconsciously observed by the bitter as progressive.

The question of correctness is a daunting one because one can not sensibly give a conclusive objective answer. Rather there would be many none related scattered subjective suppositions which instead of providing close analysis to yield an agreed package there would be value laden insinuations that will lead to nothing but a complete paralysis of the debate.

Hence, this is my conclusion; correctness heavily relies on who is saying it. My friend may be more correct then the stranger or my comrade may be more rational than the rival. Even in courts where justice as correctness need to apply they would hide their lack of understanding by strong, hard and confusing legal jargon. For example, why would a person who stole a property go to jail?

A correct and fair judgment would require a victim to be placed back to the position before transgression occurred. How would it assist a victim to take away for hundred of years a person who took away uninsured car? Why not make the transgressor work for the car and later on courts decide at the legal implications by the transgressor of removing the victim from exalted place.

Therefore, if courts fail to restore the victim to the original position why are we contradicting ourselves as constitutional democracy. I stand to be corrected all acts and precedents relating to criminal procedure draw their mandate from the highest law of this land which is the constitution.

Our constitution is not primarily restorative in nature but liberal: meaning it places at its core the protection and advancement of individual liberties, protection and enforcement of transactions and the rule of law. Any other things are secondary.

One would wonder where I am going with such ‘three eyed or seemingly retarded’ obsession about correctness? In an event where one takes by force someone’s pen only to make a timeless classic painting, does it by any chance make the painting that someone?

Or should I say the signature of the original painter on the painting need to be replaced with that of the owner of the pen to indicate that the pen was for that someone? In any case does it make that someone a painter?

This country is preoccupied with replacing signatures on creations that were not theirs let alone destroying historical memory. Sometimes to build does not necessarily need demolishing hence skyscrapers. Also there is a room in the development of any nation of new roads and new cities. Any nation is advanced by dreams which are carefully nurtured to make a great impact on the life of that nation.

Unfortunately in the distant past someone was entertained who woke up with a catastrophic dream. We are busy erasing memories that would have made historical studies and lessons easier to understand and follow. As bad as our past may seem the reality is ‘it was someone’s painting’. In pain we need to stand, together in our differences forge a platform of understanding to map our future. The correctness of removing names of streets, buildings and bridges do not tally with how future needs to look like. Even at universities and colleges plagiarism is punishable yet in our daily lives we make it looks like a justifiable act that emits dignity and pride.

Imagine a sixth generation post apartheid young adult passing at Kruger House on ‘Church’ in Pretoria which would then be called ‘Mandela House’. Why this house looks old the boy would ask? The uncle or father answers “no before it was called Mandela House it used to be ‘Kruger House’”

The next logical question would be “what is the significance of the house to Mandela?” Personally, I do not want to dwell on possible line of question but I think we are embarrassing ourselves to the future generations. We are trying to hide our forefathers’ defeat by putting our signatures on the masterpieces which were and are not our own creation. It is not the African way. Our forefathers went to war and were found wanting.

Africans admit their defeat and make peace, as boys we fought many battles when we were young as part of growing up. As adults we harbour no anger against those who defeated us. Instead we cherish each others’ presence. Sometimes we even make jokes about how one was defeated. This is what define and makes a true warrior to stand out. Name changes are an antithesis of what the liberation struggle was about.

The exercise removes all the footprints of the life lived, evidence of the scale of oppression, how excluded the majority were to the urban life and ultimately it makes some part of our history a joke.

Imagine that very sixth generation post apartheid young adult being told for the very first time the history of pass laws and the group areas act. He will be fascinated by the story and confused by the reality in front of him.

Confounded, he would want to know how would white regime name most streets with black names and refuse them to walk on them. Name changes not only distort history but will also require our introduction to political history story telling to be preceded by justification. It will have to start with what the street was, why it was changed and what it is now called, then the history that occurred on that street.

Name changes may be historically justifiable but lack good judgment. The masterpiece was penned with absolute precision portraying painter’s inviting imaginations using pen and ink that was forcefully taken from defeated great grand father. Does that make great grandson to have any claim to that painting? In the first instance, why the great grandfather failed to defend his pen and ink?

Plainly this is revenge than anything else. Do I say apartheid was okay? Hell no! , the whole rationale behind my position is that any piece of land at some point was occupied by someone who either decided to move south, north, west or east depending on the pastoral needs at that time. Clans, and then Tribes were formed because someone smart and brave hated to work and decided to marshal everyone and appropriated material means unto himself and placed all under his command.

No one can claim to have an inherent right over any piece of land. All we need is to be civil to each other nothing more nothing less. In the event you want to take more from the rest at least be decent enough not to insult them. Let them be their own masters, do not give them handouts.

Vengeance is an amateurish vision to frustrate progress. It stems from the failure to see opportunity ending up eating away what is available around. South Africa is a constitutional democracy that inherited a country that had a resilient populace. People had hope, enthusiasm and a ready mental infrastructure to make this country great. Instead this current regime turned them into couch potatoes. There is no incentive for education and hard work. Everyone is waiting for an RDP house, free water and electricity. This regime has created a population of ‘numb’ hands-less, people who are waiting to be fed. Money that supposes to go to investment, expanding existing industries and creating new employment opportunities is snowed under in the form of all sorts of grants.

This meticulous failure is further polished by the existence of BEE, affirmative action and all sorts of so called non functional enabling policies. The reality is, jointly, if public and private sector can create sound and meaningful economic opportunities there would be bread for everyone. Statistically whites, Indians and people of mixed races combined are fewer than African majority. Therefore if all energies and expertise are harnessed to create economic opportunities without any favour in the end all will have a room in the economy.

Numbers will then start playing their magic. In the event where economy absorbs at least 80% of the population more black people will be working then any other race in this country. Representation will only be required in the decision making platforms.

Vengeance is like a get rich quick scheme. In the end it hurts many involved in it. This country is run on a welfare ticket which in the end will not be sustainable. We need to start to be seen to want to win. Public sector salaries need to be capped at least at fifty thousand rand a month. It is selfish, cruel and inhumane for any person in the public sector to earn more than this figure when there is someone earning nothing. Private sector should be used as the only vehicle to wealth accumulation not the public sector.

When the public official feels it is not enough what is being paid that servant need to be released from his duties to join private sector. In any case many high profile public servants are over rated some do not even posses those skills which they are over compensated for. Some are just pompous, slander junior civil servants and have no shame of saying they do not know when they are required to give direction.

Correctness therefore requires that we see each other as a whole not some as masters and others as ‘slaves’. Citizens do not want residues from politicians, they know what they want to eat, when to eat and where to eat. They do not want to be fed, it is demeaning, they want substantive positive living conditions that will make them principals of their own lives, families and are able to secure the future of their children.

Not all, but many programmes and exercises which have been adopted by the current regime are geared toward indoctrinating the populace in order to vote in a particular way. From children’s grant which by the way is not filtered correctly to target correct deserving children, temporary disability which is overwhelmingly abused due to the lack of laser focused monitoring, school feeding scheme especially in rural areas which is beyond disaster, RDP houses which have questionable distributive criterion where even managers will own not one but many and government infrastructure that is overtly deteriorating.

As a country and the nation, to thrive we need to define correctness. There are things that need referendums, for instance salary increase in the parliament, cars that are driven by our ministers, suburbs that house our high profile public figures, schools where public officials’ kids need to go, health facilities that high profile public officials use etc.

These people are accountable to us voters. We therefore as a nation need to decide on what is correct for them to use not the other way round. In any instance when anything needs to be done its accuracy, relevancy and correctness should be defined by populace.

In conclusion we also need to understand and define the relevance and correctness of voting. People need to understand that voting is not emotional, in fact it is truly about securing and aligning the future to your personal needs and protecting interests of the future generations.

In voting, consideration of home land security, foreign policy, economic policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, military policy and many more come to play. Simple: we do not vote people into position of power because we like them instead their correctness to manage current living circumstances and shape the future driven by us.

For instance some of us would prefer an extra million available to be spent on advancing the plight of the poor than changing the name of the freeway or some building. The correct usage of money here is defined by whatever that provides positive economic conditions to the poor.

Let us paint our own masterpieces, not put signatures on other people’s work.

Mthandeni Mhlongo (MA-Political studies UND)