Ok, as a Zulu man I am faced with a constitutional crisis of sorts. I grew up under the distinct and unquestionable impression that there is a particular dichotomy between the sins of our fathers and the curiosity of young minds. Simply put, no amount of infantile curiosity could ever warrant the interrogation of the actions of an elder. So if my grandfather decided that we should all sleep at 5 p.m. because he has said so (regardless of any homework commitments) then it shall be so. On the odd occasion that one dared question authority then the attendant punishment often resembled something so revered by the lynch-mobs of the Ku Klux Klan, except this was black-on-black punishment disbursed under the mystical guise of love and discipline. This obviously worked for most of my peers as my generation is perhaps the last black generation that still practices those age-old habits of respecting the elders and complying with the code of conduct prescribed by the community. The importance of the hierarchy of respect within the black community cannot be disputed. There is always something tragically upsetting to watch a 4-year old hooligan argue with her mother in a supermarket regarding some meaningless pretext or the other, and an even greater sense of shame when the inept parent then yields to the demand of the classless brat. I always look on such episodes with condescending curiosity. Is it merely because ‘new age’ black kids are now being raised in the liberal, laissez-faire social atmosphere so lamented upon by George Orwell in 1984? Are the new blacks ever so eager to disassociate themselves with the traditional and apparently backward-looking methods of rearing kids in a world so intent on hurtling us all forward towards a future of neo-liberalism? The greatest inheritance of black society in South Africa has always been the militant commitment to respecting one’s elders. It may be said that without such an approach in which one child had an indisputable duty to respect all elders within the community equally then the black community would slide into anarchy of sorts.
There remains something particularly awkward in the boardrooms that I am exposed to when the blacks have to address a direct question and then promptly fail to make eye-contact with the other parties. This is simply because it is a minor scandal for a black person to stare directly into the eyes of another during conversation. This may be interpreted as confrontational and rather aggressive. With the other cultures however, it is the most critical element of honesty, probity and transparency in a conversation to maintain good eye-contact. Failing to make eye-contact gives undertones of evasiveness, self-doubt and perhaps an element of dishonesty. A few years ago I was tasked with hosting a few matric students who were to be presented to various sponsors for interviews. On the eve of the interviews, I then undertook to prepare the students for the interviews by simulating the potential scenarios. 2 of the individuals were from that fortress of Zulu traditions- Nongoma. During the simulated interview, these individuals never at once looked up into the face of the mock-interviewers. They were firmly of the opinion that to do so would be a scandalous betrayal of all they had been bought up to be. Unfortunately, they were interviewed by 2 white individuals who could never understand how on earth they should ever sponsor people who lacked the temerity to ever look them in the face. Inasmuch as some may overlook this distinction (excuse the pun) it remains the most obvious example of the mild socio-cultural conflicts so prevalent in our modern society. In South Africa’s case this is even more complicated as we pledge allegiance to a vast number of difference cultures and the related behaviours. What binds these multi-faceted cultures together is an observance of the most important document produced in the republic since the Freedom Charter; the Constitution of the Republic, fondly knows as Act 108 of 1996.
Under the provision of this Act we are all South Africans and indeed every single culture is duly recognised. That means that the Hindu culture enjoys the same privileges, stature and importance afforded to the Zulu, Xhosa or Afrikaans culture. Furthermore, the same Act supports a system of governance known as democracy which among other things, recognises the rights of the Fourth Estate (commonly known as the media) to exist and indeed make its presence felt. And that is the essence of my crisis. No lesser a man than Mr Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma (I tried to say Honourable, really) is the president of the Republic. This means that he is not the custodian of the Zulu culture but of all cultures in the Republic. He is not the messiah of the Christians in South Africa but the custodian of all religious creeds in the country. As the chief custodian of the Constitution it unfortunately falls within his mandate to ensure that all races, religions, cultures, practices, traditions and preferences enjoy equal acceptance and the liberty to practice their freedoms of association, speech, mobility and the fundamental right of every individual to call himself a citizen of South Africa.
So here I am sitting with a group of individuals who are of the opinion that nothing he does is beyond public scrutiny. No element of his life can be separated into private versus public. Furthermore, such individuals are indeed of the opinion that in their own cultures, people have to earn respect rather than claim it as a historical inheritance. Such people are of the conviction that if you believe a public figure is acting in a manner unbefitting his stature then the Constitution grants you the right to question such actions and demand responses or restitutions. The notion that we are all Africans is an important issue here. Are we Africans based on the depth of our cultural inheritances or is this merely an ideology imposed upon all South Africans by the geographical and constitutional mandates? The ridiculous notion of freedom of speech means that I actually have a right to trash-talk any practice I take exception to. This means that whoever forms the opinion that Zulus are indeed steeped in sensuality and vice is actually allowed to state such reservations without fear of prosecution. We saw this issue come to play regarding the killing of the bull incident last year. Bizarrely, the courts were asked to rule on the barbaric nature of the practice and yet no such ruling was demanded from the people who, by virtue of questioning such a practice, actually brought into question the validity of its existence which is amazingly enough a violation of the constitution itself.
Inevitably, the Zulu culture has come in for some harsh criticism and ridicule of late and I for one feel hamstrung to defend it. This is simply because if I as an individual believe that my culture is being misrepresented by an elder then I should be able to defend it except for one minor problem; if I am to obtain an explanation from an elder regarding why he is misrepresenting my culture then I am questioning his actions which is well, err, a complete violation of the culture I would be claiming a defence of. This is precisely why we as Zulus feel ill-at-ease questioning why Mr Zuma could ever adopt optional practices and then rebrand them as cultural imperatives. This simply lacks substance as I have now been asked whether any Zulu man who fails to take multiple wives is infact a half-Zulu eager to betray his own cultural practices. How do you respond to that?
There is a school of thought that has formed the opinion that perhaps the Constitution of the Republic is actually incompatible with the African practices it seeks to defend. There can be no doubt that the constitution mandates accountability from the head of state but there is absolutely no way a Zulu person could ever ask the president to explain his aversion to condoms and whatever else he seems reluctant to adopt. That the constitution can promote equality and still make allowances for arranged marriages and polygamy flies in the face of common sense. If a group of individuals can sue a particular cultural group for practicing its culture then surely the constitution itself is breeding the confusion by stating that all such cultures must co-exist? More importantly, does this allegiance I am pledging to my Zulu culture and its reluctance to confront elders amount to a form of self-censorship? With this in mind, who exactly is going to defend the culture itself against verbal scrutiny and hysterical attacks if the culture itself makes little allowance for any debate with the elders which would infact, furnish us with the ammunition to lodge a logical defence in the name of the Zulus and their culture?
Twitter: @CoruscaKhaya
No comments:
Post a Comment