The Tribune

ONE of the purposes of this column is to shed light on issues which might be inherently significant but which all too often have largely escaped the attention of the US and other media.

An example is the recent passing at the age of 95 of Mangosuthu Buthelezi, a Zulu hereditary chief who remained until his death the traditional ruler and prime minister of KwaZulu-Natal province which is home to the nation’s largest ethnic group. As such, he also played a prominent role in South Africa’s national politics for seven decades from the years following the imposition of apartheid by the Afrikaner-dominated National Party government elected in 1948.

Events in South Africa, with its population of some 60 million, are inherently important, not only because it is one of Africa’s biggest and most developed economies but also in view of its political background after the system of apartheid – also later known as separate development - legally institutionalised the country’s already existing racial segregation. So it is instructive to study the nation’s history.

According to reports, Buthelezi was granted a state funeral, which took place this past weekend, in recognition of his contribution to the fight against white-minority rule. President Cyril Ramaphosa led the tributes, calling him a formidable and outstanding leader “who had played a significant role in our country’s history”.

Despite such praise, and the fact that Buthelezi at some point served as a minister in Nelson Mandela’s first democratic African National Congress (ANC) ruling government in the 1990s, history records that, as a shrewd and controversial politician, he did not always see eye to eye with the ANC. In the early days of the imposition and implementation of apartheid, he joined the ANC when it was a liberation movement and campaigned with Mandela and others. But later he felt that the party was becoming too radical in embracing the communist teachings of Karl Marx. He gradually developed his own ideas about how to oppose white-minority rule and end apartheid, rejecting the armed struggle as well as economic sanctions which he argued would harm black South Africans most of all.

Interestingly, the British prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, agreed with him about the effects of sanctions and she was, of course, isolated at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting here in Nassau in 1985 because of her stance on the issue. What people did not know at that time was that she was simultaneously corresponding directly with P W Botha, the South African president, keeping up the pressure for political change and calling repeatedly for the release of Mandela. Strictly confidential at the time, this correspondence can now be read online.

Becoming disillusioned with the ANC, Buthelezi founded the Zulu nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) in 1975. For his stance on this, his supporters believe he deserves praise as a man of peace. But others at the time insisted that the threat of violence and even civil war was the only way forward to secure real change; and history might have been very different if these threats had been ditched and Afrikaner colleagues of the then state president, F W de Klerk, had been emboldened to persuade him there was no overriding need to end apartheid and pursue his democratic reforms.

All the while, many contend that in such circumstances the then South African government were probably trying to win over Buthelezi with a view to countering the ANC – and at the British embassy, where I happened to be serving at the time, one of our tasks was to try to get alongside him to find out more about his ideas.

According to reports, there was serious conflict between the ANC and IFP for a period following Mandela’s release from prison in 1990. So it perhaps comes as no surprise that Buthelezi’s funeral has reignited controversy about his role and legacy and opened up old wounds because the evidence is that that legacy was overshadowed by political violence.

The Zulu leader’s critics say that, during the transition to multi-party democracy, an estimated 20,000 people died in violence between the ANC and IFP, and that he himself should have taken responsibility for this, not least because it is claimed that atrocities were committed in his name. Some have even accused him of cooperating with the secret police at the time and called him “a murderous apartheid collaborator”. They also maintained that he had been exploited by the government for their own purposes. But he firmly denied being part of any violence and human rights abuses or of the IFP receiving assistance to finance hit squads.  Furthermore, despite claims he supported the South African white-minority regime, Buthelezi is firmly on the record as publicly opposing and condemning apartheid while patently and consistently taking an obstructive stance against it.

Some modern historians suggest that Buthelezi had given in to the government on taking up the leadership of KwaZulu-Natal when it became one of the newly-created Bantustans or Homelands imposed on the country where black South Africans were forced to live after having been deprived of their citizenship. But, of course, he and other leaders had no choice because, at the time KwaZulu existed in the 1970s, that was all that was on offer from the white-minority government, and at least Buthelezi was able to protect the interests of his own people and build a power base for Zulus.

In summary, Buthelezi’s enemies remember him as having occupied a comfortable position of power and influence when ‘real’ campaigners were being imprisoned, exiled beaten and killed. On the other hand, his supporters say he did his best to protect his people, while working to undermine the evil regime of apartheid.

While it is clearly too soon to judge his lasting legacy, historians are already saying that Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s nearly seventy years of service showed his unfailing dedication to preserving Zulu customs and rituals at a critical juncture in South Africa’s history – and for this he is widely revered.

ARE WE REALLY IN A STATE OF CRISIS?

A detailed study of the UK press online this weekend confirmed earlier thoughts I have been harbouring about the age of hysteria we are apparently living in in the West when we seem to be lurching from one crisis to another. The media have labelled it a “permacrisis”. Indeed, this is being defined in the press as an extended period of insecurity, especially one resulting from a series of catastrophic events. But does this really capture the reality of the age?

No one doubts that in Britain there has been a state of uncertainty and worry as a result of the upheavals created by issues like Brexit; the pandemic; climate change and severe weather; the war in Ukraine; warnings by the Bank of England of the worst and longest recession in the country’s history; unprecedented political instability with three different prime ministers in as many months; the energy squeeze; an escalating migrant problem and the cost of living crisis. Add to these the passing of The Queen and most people might say that 2022 was a somewhat grim year for Britain.

But at what point do these issues become crises rather than serious difficulties capable of resolution by an elected government which has been voted in to handle them within a well-ordered and largely peaceful society. What is more, this is a government backed by a calm and stoical people known for their collective sang-froid in facing insuperable challenges during their country’s eventful history.

In the past, it cannot be said that Britain has only had to deal with less grave issues – for example, could there be anything more serious than the threat of invasion by Nazi Germany in 1940? Or is it that with developments in IT technology – not least, of course, the internet - people are more aware of what is going on since they are, in effect, being force fed with a plethora of information, not only about their own country but in relation to the rest of the world as well? So it appears that every issue amounts to a threatening crisis. The media thrives on drama and it indulges in hyperbole. But the general feeling seems to be that people are being led to believe – falsely, in many cases - that we are living in an era of unending political and economic chaos and constant worldwide disaster; and, yes, a ‘permacrisis’.

From what I have read, there is now real concern that the current generation is not only suffering unnecessarily from all this because they are at a permanent fever pitch of hysteria and anxiety but also from what is now being termed information overload, with unlimited data easily accessible in quantities that people could find difficult to process at any one time. This invariably heightens a permanent sense of anxiety, worry and insecurity. Via the internet, people can witness disaster and suffering elsewhere in the world and be made to feel vicariously responsible in some way for other people’s misfortune - and this, of course, only increases their fears and anxiety.

If one perseveres, it is invariably productive to conduct research through Google, and the ease of doing so beats using an encyclopedia any day. There are always limitations on what people know. But the extent of their knowledge can sometimes be affected, ironically, by too much information and data that can confuse rather than clarify. In the modern age, the ready availability of information is, in effect, limitless and can sometimes be contradictory. There is simply too much of it out there and its accuracy can be dubious. So, in order to remain sane, people have to control the amount which they are exposed to. In the famous words of the American economist and writer, Thomas Sowell, “It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance” or, more colloquially and in self-deprecatory fashion, “the more I get to know, the more I realise how little I know”.

 Who can guess where all this will go as information technology changes and develops all the time? But at least use of an Internet search engine is preferable to delving in to that famous Encyclopaedia Britannica!

INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT OFF TO A GOOD START

The Rugby World Cup, being played in France at various venues around the country, has been underway since September 8 and will last for six weeks. The final on October 20 is due to be held at the Stade de France north of Paris, which was built for the FIFA World Cup in 1998. This Rugby World Cup was founded in 1987 and is contested every four years. South Africa, which has won the trophy three times, are the holders after defeating England in 2019.

Twenty different countries are participating from Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania and South America, though this year neither the US nor Canada is involved. They are divided in to four pools. The teams in each pool play one another in a round-robin, with the top two in each advancing to the knockout stage. As a physically tough and demanding sport, a minimum of five rest days between matches provide time for rest and recuperation and recovery from injury. Apart from South Africa, four countries have won the trophy – New Zealand three times, Australia twice and England once.

Aficionados of the fine sport of rugby have welcomed the fact that the matches are being broadcast live on US TV channels. So far, they have provided a feast of action at the highest level of the game that has been interesting and stimulating to watch. The stand-out feature has been the excellent performances by the traditionally weaker countries, sometimes referred to by competitive followers of rugby as the ‘minnows’, which normally experience defeat by the usually stronger teams from New Zealand – the famous All Blacks - South Africa and Australia together with the more powerful countries from the Northern Hemisphere like England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and France.

In the pool games so far, teams from, for example, Samoa, Fiji and Portugal have played above themselves and secured surprisingly good results. Perhaps the best performance of all so far was Fiji’s win over Australia which was their first victory over the Wallabies since 1954. To many, this levelling up following massive improvement in the play of those who were considered to have little chance against the so-called “big boys” of rugby, is a welcome development that is good for the future of their sport. Meanwhile, England, who won the trophy in 2003, have gained two straight victories after several poor defeats in the warm-up matches.

There should be an abundance of impressive and entertaining rugby to look forward to in the coming weeks. The best is surely yet to come!