By now South Africans have had time to digest what, for many, was the unpalatable Nkandla report presented by the Minister of Police Nathi Nhleko in parliament last week.
If the print and online news media are anything to go by, it would appear that many citizens are still suffering the after-effects of said report.
I will not add to the torment by rehashing every excruciating detail of the report, yet I feel compelled by conviction, morality, social conscience, call it what you will, to add my voice to the growing throng of those who have expressed their opinions on the matter.
As a social observer and academic, I would like to contextualise my reading of the Nkandla matter. It was not too long ago – on March 9 to be exact – that we were captivated by the #RhodesMustFall campaign which emerged at the University of Cape Town.
The campaign to remove the statue of Cecil John Rhodes from the UCT campus quickly developed into a movement that spread to other cities, towns and campuses. In essence, the campaign allegedly aimed at decolonising education by initially targeting symbols of imperialism and colonialism, and later what were perceived as apartheid symbols.
These symbols were most often represented by statues that became the focal points of the protest.
The Rhodes statue was smothered with faeces while other statues in other areas met with various kinds of defacement.
The symbols represented oppression, suppression and racism and, to the protesters, marked the dark history of colonialism. These symbols were interpreted as markers of a lack of transformation in universities such as UCT.
A wider interpretation could also be that the statues symbolised the reasons for the continuing problems emanating from the perceived lack of transformation at societal level.
A cursory reading of the ensuing debates among ordinary South African commentators following the beginning of the #RhodesMustFall campaign revealed not only a polarisation of views, but a polarisation that carried racial overtones and meanings on both sides of the debate.
Such is the nature of symbols. They elicit wide-ranging meanings and interpretations. The meanings and interpretations of historical symbols, such as the statues, are often framed within the historical context(s) of those symbols.
In a country such as South Africa, the historical contextualisations of what symbols mean are often contested, the direct result of a contestation of interpretations of history.
For some, the Rhodes statue may have symbolised the progressive and positive contributions that Rhodes made during his time in South Africa, not least of which was the establishment of institutions such as UCT.
For others, the statue symbolised the indignity of imperialism, the foundation of what would become a highly racialised and highly segregated society.
The anthropologist Victor Turner argued that symbols have two contrasting poles of reference that each provide the meanings and interpretations of those symbols. He referred to this as the “polarisation of significata”.
The two poles he identified were the sensory and the ideological. The sensory pole represented the meanings and interpretations that referred to physiological processes, in other words, meanings generated from tangible symbols that could be observed through the senses.
The ideological pole centred on meanings generated by the intangible and unobservable, in other words, the social values, beliefs or perceptions attached to a specific symbol.
In the National Assembly last week the president of the republic articulated that Nkandla was “just a house”. However, like the Rhodes statue and other symbols, Nkandla has become more than just a house – it has become a symbol with both sensory and ideological meanings.
In the Saturday Dispatch of May 30, Professor Leslie Bank suggested several meanings for the symbol of Nkandla.
Not only does it represent the ongoing and, as yet unresolved public debates about the abuse of state funds in its construction, but it also symbolises what Bank calls “a perverse development model which is both unsustainable and deceitful”.
I would add to that and argue that ideologically Nkandla symbolises the decadence and opulence of a government completely out of touch with the realities of its citizens. It proposes that perhaps statues of long-dead imperialists are no longer adequate scapegoats for the continuing suffering of the masses.
It symbolises that the past can no longer shoulder the blame for current corruption and mismanagement. It symbolises a growing discontent among South African citizens who are finding it harder and harder to sustain a significant drain on their finite resources.
It symbolises a crisis of leadership.
If dumping of faeces on the Rhodes statue was a symbol of being fed up with the lack of transformation in society, what will the fate of the symbol of Nkandla be once the people become fed up enough?
Theodore Petrus is an anthropologist and research professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Fort Hare
Nkandla sign of decadent out-of-touch government
If the print and online news media are anything to go by, it would appear that many citizens are still suffering the after-effects of said report.
I will not add to the torment by rehashing every excruciating detail of the report, yet I feel compelled by conviction, morality, social conscience, call it what you will, to add my voice to the growing throng of those who have expressed their opinions on the matter.
As a social observer and academic, I would like to contextualise my reading of the Nkandla matter. It was not too long ago – on March 9 to be exact – that we were captivated by the #RhodesMustFall campaign which emerged at the University of Cape Town.
The campaign to remove the statue of Cecil John Rhodes from the UCT campus quickly developed into a movement that spread to other cities, towns and campuses. In essence, the campaign allegedly aimed at decolonising education by initially targeting symbols of imperialism and colonialism, and later what were perceived as apartheid symbols.
These symbols were most often represented by statues that became the focal points of the protest.
The Rhodes statue was smothered with faeces while other statues in other areas met with various kinds of defacement.
The symbols represented oppression, suppression and racism and, to the protesters, marked the dark history of colonialism. These symbols were interpreted as markers of a lack of transformation in universities such as UCT.
A wider interpretation could also be that the statues symbolised the reasons for the continuing problems emanating from the perceived lack of transformation at societal level.
A cursory reading of the ensuing debates among ordinary South African commentators following the beginning of the #RhodesMustFall campaign revealed not only a polarisation of views, but a polarisation that carried racial overtones and meanings on both sides of the debate.
Such is the nature of symbols. They elicit wide-ranging meanings and interpretations. The meanings and interpretations of historical symbols, such as the statues, are often framed within the historical context(s) of those symbols.
In a country such as South Africa, the historical contextualisations of what symbols mean are often contested, the direct result of a contestation of interpretations of history.
For some, the Rhodes statue may have symbolised the progressive and positive contributions that Rhodes made during his time in South Africa, not least of which was the establishment of institutions such as UCT.
For others, the statue symbolised the indignity of imperialism, the foundation of what would become a highly racialised and highly segregated society.
The anthropologist Victor Turner argued that symbols have two contrasting poles of reference that each provide the meanings and interpretations of those symbols. He referred to this as the “polarisation of significata”.
The two poles he identified were the sensory and the ideological. The sensory pole represented the meanings and interpretations that referred to physiological processes, in other words, meanings generated from tangible symbols that could be observed through the senses.
The ideological pole centred on meanings generated by the intangible and unobservable, in other words, the social values, beliefs or perceptions attached to a specific symbol.
In the National Assembly last week the president of the republic articulated that Nkandla was “just a house”. However, like the Rhodes statue and other symbols, Nkandla has become more than just a house – it has become a symbol with both sensory and ideological meanings.
In the Saturday Dispatch of May 30, Professor Leslie Bank suggested several meanings for the symbol of Nkandla.
Not only does it represent the ongoing and, as yet unresolved public debates about the abuse of state funds in its construction, but it also symbolises what Bank calls “a perverse development model which is both unsustainable and deceitful”.
I would add to that and argue that ideologically Nkandla symbolises the decadence and opulence of a government completely out of touch with the realities of its citizens. It proposes that perhaps statues of long-dead imperialists are no longer adequate scapegoats for the continuing suffering of the masses.
It symbolises that the past can no longer shoulder the blame for current corruption and mismanagement. It symbolises a growing discontent among South African citizens who are finding it harder and harder to sustain a significant drain on their finite resources.
It symbolises a crisis of leadership.
If dumping of faeces on the Rhodes statue was a symbol of being fed up with the lack of transformation in society, what will the fate of the symbol of Nkandla be once the people become fed up enough?
Theodore Petrus is an anthropologist and research professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Fort Hare
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos