Category: Apartheid

Introduction

The white rulers of the National Party (NP) initiated the apartheid system in South Africa. The system segregated the Africans from accessing certain privileges, and it became a policy in1948. The policy required inhabitants of South Africa to be classified into racial groups, where, one was black, white, colored, or Indian.

People were obligated to reside in particular areas depending on their race. The National Party deprived the blacks of their citizenship, and they had to become Bantustans. The blacks could not access quality education, quality healthcare services, and other public services.

The oppression caused various incidences of violence and protests in the 1980s. The imprisonment of the anti-apartheid leaders infuriated the blacks and it caused instability across the nation.

Blacks were ready to oppose the governing National party through all ways and means. The state was repressive to the actions of the blacks and it responded by facilitating state sponsored violence.

Brief description of the negotiation

Although the governing national party reformed the apartheid system, the reformations could not stop the Africans from opposing the government. The African National Congress (ANC) had strongly believed that the apartheid government would never negotiate unless they used force.

Moreover, the ruling National Party had earlier on banned the ANC because of its armed struggle to fight for democracy. However, in 1990, President Frederik Williem De Klerk began the negotiations to finish apartheid in South Africa. The ANC could not turn down the offer to negotiate with the National Party.

While still in prison, Nelson Mandela got in touch with the anti-apartheid leaders, and he obligated them to put forward proposals to negotiate. During that period, the government had always had secret talks with Nelson regarding his intentions.

The ANC, Afrikaner intellectuals, and the white business leaders held meetings to discuss the issue of ending apartheid. President De Klerk played a significant role in influencing the whites to accept change.

Nelson Mandela was set free in 1990, and thereafter, intensive negotiations to stop apartheid commenced. Formal negotiations occurred between the governing National Party and the government, and in 4 May 1990, the two groups agreed to end armed struggle and focus on having political negotiations (Thomson, 2012).

Thereafter, there was no more violence, and the two groups stated discussing crucial matters. The release of political prisoners, immunity, education, and political rights were crucial matters that were discussed in the negotiations.

Through various struggles in the negotiations, the two parties agreed to release political prisoners, ban dangerous weapons, and create an elected constitutional assembly (Marx, 2000). The assembly would develop new regulations and amend the constitution accordingly.

Issues versus the interests of the parties involved

The governing National Party had self-interests, where the whites wanted to have some privileges over the blacks. In the negotiations, the National party insisted on having a special minority right to favor the whites.

They wanted a favored power sharing strategy based on group rights, so that they could have an opportunity to serve in the government.

On the other hand, ANC was concerned with the apartheid issue. It is worth noting that the governing National party was not happy with the entire proceedings; they wanted to remain in government and continue oppressing the Africans.

From one time to another, planned assassinations would occur in regions resided by the blacks. The ANC would respond by suspending the negotiations to protest against the killings. It is because of the cleverness of Nelson Mandela and De Klerk that the ANC and the governing National Party were able to agree.

Mandela defused the tense situations by ordering people to be calm, as he knew what he wanted for his nation. The situation worsened as the Afrikaner Resistant Movement rammed the building where negotiations were taking place, but Nelson Mandela could not give in to the ill intentions.

Finally, an agreement was reached, and the citizens were free to carry out elections and choose their leaders. The National Party became powerless, and it had to drop its demands for the minority rights for the whites.

The two parties agreed on a power-sharing translation that would allow multiple parties to take part in the government proceedings. South Africa was reborn and it established a government of national unity.

Ethical behaviors and tactics used in the negotiation

Various incidences came up to agitate the negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa. The killings in Sebokeng in 1990 infuriated the ANC leaders who had to suspend the negotiations to protest the killings.

The negotiations resumed once again, but before long, the Inkathagate scandal occurred in July 1991 to disrupt the entire exercise. Research indicates that the National Party was using the scandals as a tactic to disrupt the negotiations.

The Goldstone Commission of inquiry confirmed the allegation by exposing the governments support for the violence in the towns resided by the blacks. The government was using a third force, where armed security officers could attack and kill the blacks to raise the eyebrows of the black leaders.

However, Nelson Mandela appealed for calmness as he recognized the intentions of the people behind the planned assassinations. He simply ordered for forgiveness for the time being, and promised to resume formal investigations after the negotiations.

Finally, Nelson Mandela achieved his goal, and in 27 April 1994, South Africa was a democratic nation that held a peaceful election. For the first time ever, millions of South Africans were able to vote for their leaders of choice.

Nelson Mandela was elected as president, and the constitution took the centre stage to govern the South Africans. The humility, perseverance, and persistence of Nelson Mandela brought the victory of justice for all citizens (Warner, 2007).

Best alternative to the negotiation (BATNA)

BATNA is the second best alternative to take if parties in a negotiation fail to come to an agreement. In this case, the National Party wanted some special minority rights for the whites. In case the parties did not come to an agreement with the African National congress, it would be the best alternative.

The blacks could have their freedom, and the whites could have some special treatments in their daily errands. However, ANC had to be cautious of the special minority rights that the National Party wanted least they go back to apartheid.

BATNA is not a safety net in any way, but it is indispensable in every negotiation. It brings in the reality that negotiations may have various outcomes, and the negotiators should be ready to accommodate any of the outcomes.

Worst alternative to the negotiation (WATNA)

WATNA is the worst alternative that parties in a negotiation can take in case they fail to come to an agreement. The National Party was still interested in overruling the blacks and oppressing them. On the other hand, the blacks were tired of the apartheid system and they were ready for a battle.

The worst alternative would be settling in for a battle as the National Party had also shown interests in battling through the planned assassinations during the negotiations. A battle between the powerful governing National Party and the furious Africans would be the worst experience in South Africa.

Previous wars had already caused massive deaths, and certainly, a national war between the two great parties would wipe out the population in South Africa in a matter of days.

Integrative negotiation strategy proposal

Integrative negotiations occur if the concessions are intended to benefit both parties equally. The win-win negotiation strategy would occur if the two parties agree on a decision that would bring mutual benefits to both parties. The integrative strategy proposal would entail the listed steps.

1. Identify the interests of the members of each side. In the negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa, the National Party wanted some special rights for the whites while the ANC wanted to end apartheid.
2. Create adverse options: The concession should allow every person to contribute towards or against certain parts of the negotiation.
3. Choose the wisest decision: Since the disputants are joint problem solvers, they should choose the best decision of the available options.
4. The two groups should choose decisions based on interests and not positions. They ought to work together to impose fair principles.
5. The two groups should use reasoning that yields to principles, and they should not pressurize anyone.
6. After applying the above approaches, the two groups should be able to come up with win-win opportunities. In this case, both parties would realize the win-win opportunity if equality is attained between the whites and the blacks.

Distributive negotiation strategy proposal

Distributive negotiation involves two parties that struggle to win a negotiation. The more one side gets, the more the other side looses. Distributive bargaining may occur in cases where there is no other alternative. The distributive strategy proposal would entail the listed steps.

1. Identify the interests of the members, and identify the minimum or maximum offer that the other group would accept before surrendering.
2. Groups should guard their information and use tricks to obtain information from their opponents.
3. The group that manages to obtain as much information as possible about its opponent can concede or hold on to their decisions.
4. The groups can thereby present their matters and demand their concessions.
5. The entire process should include use of force, pressures, and the main aim is to win the negotiation as the opponent looses. In this case, the distributive negotiation strategy would apply if the blacks won and the whites became insignificant in South Africa.

Conclusion

From the discussions, it is evident that De Klerk, the National Party leader, played a significant role in ending apartheid in South Africa. Although he was a white, De Klerk desired to see South Africa transforming into a multi-racial democracy.

He wanted all the citizens in South Africa to have equal voting rights and equal rights to access all public services.

The humility, cleverness, and selflessness of Nelson Mandela enabled South Africans to obtain their independence. The two leaders, De Klerk and Nelson Mandela, are inimitable leaders who will remain in the world history forever.

References

Marx, A. W. (2000). Apartheids end: South Africas transition from racial domination. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 20(3), 474-496.

Thomson, A. (2012). A more effective constructive engagement: US policy towards South Africa after the comprehensive Anti-apartheid Act of 1986. Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies, 39(3), 371-389.

Warner, J. (2007). Different lessons from the South African experience. Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics & Culture, 14(4), 74-79.

The historic period from 1948 to 1994 in South Africa witnessed rigid segregation legislature that was adopted by the National Party. Superiority of white population in the country prevented the African population from establishing fair treatment, which led to the division of the inhabitants in racial groups and residential areas in which various ethnicities lived. Non-white citizens were limited in freedom and rights.

The preconditions and consequences of apartheid are brightly illustrated in A Walk in the Night and A Dry White Season. Specifically, A Walk in the Night represents slight changes in racial power dynamics through representing a single story of Mikey Adonis whose life changes completely in a night when one event makes the hero grow angry and decide on a terrible and brutal action.

A Dry White Season also recounts a story of racial intolerance and deterrence on the part of the white-dominating government. The story focuses on a white English teacher who becomes the witness of unjust and cruel treatment of his black gardeners son. Both movies focus on various representations of apartheid and segregation through exploring the restrictions imposed on human rights, education, and employment opportunities.

In A Dry White Season, the main heroes struggle for equality in education and employment opportunities, but the movie explicitly represents the inferior position of native African population in contrast to social dominance of White population in South Africa.

Hence, Mr. Ben du Toit is a schoolteacher; he is a highly respected person who believes that he lives in a fair, open, and equal society. However, there are no native Africans who could take such honorable positions. They all work for white people, such Mr. Gordon, Mr. Toits gardener.

When Mr. Gordon learns about his sons death, he is not allowed to see the place where he was buried. In the movie, Mr. Toit expresses his confidence in transparency and objectivity of the governments policy toward African people. When the teacher informs Gordon about his sons death, the gardener angrily replies, And Ill find out. God is my witness, Ill find out what had really happened and where he lies (Palcy, 2000).

However, further events prove the cruel and unequal attitude toward black citizens and, therefore most of the polices actions are premised on prejudices and ignorance. The official administration did not inform Mr. Gordon about his sons death and arrested him aftermath for the unknown crime.

Mr. Adonis in the A Walk in the Night is also fired for the unknown reasons. His employer prejudices his actions and accuses him of being lazy and doing nothing just because he asked him to go out to the bathroom. By calling him kaffir, Mickey becomes angry and frustrated by looking at the open intolerance on the part of his white colleagues. The film, therefore, demonstrates how social and political impact can negatively influence the individuals psychological state.

Indeed, political context of violence is represented through insult of ethnic minorities by inappropriate and offensive words. Therefore, when his Uncle Doughty explains that its just a manner of speech, Mikey becomes outraged and kills him (Dube, 1998). The feeling of justice, as well as inability to come up with his anger and rage makes Mikey come out of control. The psychological and social pressure imposed on him leads to devastating consequences.

Despite the explicit hostility expressed by the white society, the protagonists search for the truth and strive to find any hints of mercy and understanding. Even Mr. Toit in the movie does not fully realizes the extent to which the government is corrupted because he blindly believes that the attitude to all members of society is equitable and unbiased, but further investigation revealed that the demonstration organized by the black community for equal education resulted in a great number of deaths and ungrounded arrests.

So, when Mr. Toit addressed Mr. McKenzie who pervaded him in the rightfulness of actions against the rebellious demonstration. By demonstrating the brutality and horrors of the police regime, the film appeals to anti-apartheid struggle. Similar reasons for inappropriate and prejudiced treatment are highlighted in A Walk in the Night, in which the main protagonists strive for affirmation of his rights. After he kills his uncle, he decides to confess to save his girlfriends brother, which points to his moral awareness and reconciliation.

However, the police overtly ignore his confessions and apply to violent yet legitimate actions to solve the problem. Desperate attempts of the hero to improve the situation and rescue his friends life fail of Mikeys inability to stand the corrupted authority.

Similar attempts have been made by Mr. Toits gardener who decides to find any information his dead son. However, the police strives to conceal the truth and, therefore, Gordon is charged and taken to the police office for the unknown reason. When Ben finds out about Gordons suicide, he becomes more concerned with the case, although his family does not understand his despair and frustration with the social system.

Like the Native Americans, he also feels isolation and misunderstanding on the part of the surrounding people. Melanie Bruwer seems to be the only person who understands Bens disappointment and suppression by telling: This country doesnt allow me to indulge myself. It isnt possible to live a private life if you want to live with your conscience (Palcy, 2000).

Becoming more conscious about the inequality and horrors surrounding Sovetos people, Ben faces rigid opposition from the rest of his close relatives and friends. Nevertheless, he calls Soweto people to fight for their integrity and prove their dignity.

The harmony within Bens family and his happily life contrasts with cruel and inhuman treatment of African population, which is another representation of racial segregation existed in twentieth century. The violence of police, depiction of dead, bloody victims of the demonstration, and horrible tortures are so vividly illustrated that it is difficult for the audience to watch the scenes.

However, they are necessary for understanding the emotional and psychological stance of the movie. The highlighted contrast allows the viewers to understand the premises of apartheid and the hardships that colored people had to endure.

Both movies provide various interpretation of apartheid to prove that justice and law are represented in opposition. Pledging for justice, Mr. Ben du Toit and Mikey Adonis faced a serious confrontation on the part of the horrible political regime.

Both movies also prove that justice in South Africa is overtly disregarded as soon as it comes to race and ethnicity. Intolerance, unequal treatment, and restricted freedom separated the black community from education, job opportunities, and impartial attitude. In general, both pictures appeal to the African and White audience to understand the living conditions under which the racial groups of South Africa existed.

Works Cited

Dube, M. M. (1998). A Walk in the Night. South Africa: South African Broadcasting Corporation. DVD

Palcy, E. (1989). A Dry White Season. England, UK: Pinewood Studies. DVD.

Historical lenses can significantly change any past events perception and reveal different lessons it carries for modern society. The research topic, South African Apartheid, can be discussed from political, social, and economic views as it affected each. A historian might apply political lenses in discussion for segregations establishment or set social ones to analyze how Apartheid changed peoples values and institutions structure in South Africa. The regime led almost all countries to poverty, thus the historical event can be revised through the economic changes and implications.

The research studied South African Apartheids social narrative as the addressed issues were the protests of the affected people and the regimes consequences based on the societal changes. The resistance movement significantly impacted the regimes regulation and forced its abolishment in the early 1990s (Ndhlovu, 2017).

If political lenses are applied to the research, the narrative will change as the reasons to establish Apartheid and governmental structure will be necessary to discuss instead of the problems segregation caused to the citizens. Moreover, the resistance will be perceived differently as its representatives broke the laws and might be described as the regimes adverse outcomes.

South African Apartheid is a historical event that significantly affected all aspects of the countrys economy to its citizens life values and can be assessed via multiple lenses. Primary sources like Nusseys article After Apartheid, hope, and decay, written for the Washington Post in November 1995, reveal that although the regime has just abolished, the forecasting consequences are severe (Nussey, 1995).

Current problems of South Africa, such as poverty, the lack of social life, and high crime rates, have Apartheid as the root cause. The research showed that history is not the sequence of events to memorize for erudition, but the vital educational source that everyone must conduct daily.

The Value of Studying History

Every individual must study history to increase the chances of developing a thriving society and eliminating the issues that have roots in past events. Moreover, awareness of historical lessons is necessary to prevent severe occasions from repeating. South African Apartheid is an event full of consequences and notations to learn due to its significant impact on a countrys structure and citizens.

The research viewed segregation through the social lenses, thus contemporary issues like inequity and poverty can benefit from applying the lessons South Africans learned the hard way. Injustice, based on the Apartheids example, is also hidden in a societys past and needs to be addressed and eliminated on the legislative level to allow the minority groups to get the life they deserve (Musavengane & Leonard, 2019). Poverty needs to be perceived as a social problem because discovering the reason for citizens lack of motivation to improve the circumstances might be more helpful than financial support programs.

History does repeat itself, and humanity is responsible for preventing the mistakes from appearing. The research about South African Apartheid studied social protests against segregation. Although there is no racial discrimination established on the modern worlds legislative level, the resistance groups still appear. A bright example of protesting chapter of Apartheids historys repetition is the Black Lives Matter movement. Society needs to analyze the reasons for the continuous discriminative actions against people of color and promote equity and diversity for future generations.

It is a civic obligation for each person to analyze the issues that modern society experiences, and exploring the historical causes of them are one of the most effective strategies. People could be better at their duties like respect to the rights, opinions, and beliefs if they were aware of the history behind them.

Well-informed society members can prevent serious issues from appearing or better address the existing ones, and historical events can be an excellent place to gather knowledge. Moreover, globalization allows humanity to share their experiences, and peoples lives can be improved if the lessons of other countries past are applied in combination with native culture.

References

Musavengane, R., & Leonard, L. (2019). When race and social equity matters in nature conservation in post-apartheid South Africa. Conservation & Society, 17(2), 135-146. Web.

Ndhlovu, B. C. (2017). Reconnoitring alternative forms of resistance to Apartheid South Africa, c. 19661979 and beyond: A case of an individual. South African Historical Journal, 69(2), 178-194. Web.

Nussey, W. (1995). After Apartheid, hope and decay. The Washington Post. Web.

Introduction

Historical lenses help understand various perspectives. Whether social, economic, or political lenses. Same events can be viewed differently.

Due to the separate focus points. The conclusions vary depending on lenses. Therefore, they become a valuable tool.

Historical Lenses: Apartheid

• The primary topic is the apartheid.
• Political attempt to control the population.
• Economy relied on the systematic racism.
• It had old roots in slavery.
• Social lenses are essential for understanding.
• As race was the central factor.

Historical Lenses: What Was Apartheid?

1. System of institutionalized racism and segregation.
2. Was established in the South Africa.
3. It lasted from 1940s to 1990s (Musavengane and Leonard, 2019).
4. Gave power to the white population.
5. Affected primarily the black native population.
6. Specifically, by targeting and disenfranchising them.

Political and Economic Lenses: Apartheid

• The racial segregation drove people apart.
• Restricted peoples ability to change home.
• Forbid them from furthering their career.
• Stopped them from having political power.
• Determined their social, political, and economic status.
• Supported an old and authoritarian system.

Social Lenses: Apartheid

• The apartheid was motivated by social factors.
• Specifically, racial identity, culture, and background.
• It affected the way people would interact.
• It determined their social status and position.
• Further divided the community and people.
• As well as restructured the societys hierarchy.

Historical Lenses: Conclusions

• Both sides will view the apartheid differently.
• Tellers perspective affects how it is judged.
• For apartheid supporters it was a necessity.
• To protect their power and political beliefs.
• For opposing side it was a great tragedy.
• It stripped millions of basic human rights.

Value: Our Lives

1. As well as white supremacism supporters.
2. Was abolished merely 30 years ago.
3. Shows racism can affect modern society.
4. Relevant in the current political climate.
5. Especially concerning rise in racist crimes.
6. Apartheid is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Opinion

• History tends to occasionally repeat itself.
• Yet it is rarely the same.
• Learning history helps to avoid mistakes.
• Studying history helps to understand humanity.
• Additionally, the reasons behind various conflicts.
• Thus it becomes possible to avoid repetition.

Obligation

It is essential to self-reflect on:

• Understanding the root of the issues.
• Analyzing how one contributes to them.
• Self-reflecting on a persons social standing.
• Observing how social identity affects it.
• Willing to improve society and oneself.

Conclusion

Apartheid was a systematic and institutionalized racism. It happened less than a century ago. Different historical lenses help analyze its complexity.

Social, economic, and political sides to it. It demonstrates how impactful institutionalized discrimination is. It is a civic duty to challenge racism.

References

Musavengane, R., & Leonard, L. (2019). When race and social equity matters in nature conservation in post-apartheid South Africa. Conservation & Society, 17(2), 135-146. Web.

Sides, K. B. (2017). Precedence and warning: global apartheid and South Africas long conversation on race with the United States. Safundi, 18(3), 221-238. Web.

A group of people living in a specific territory sharing the common geographical, cultural, economic, and political landscapes is called a nation. So people living in that space must have the sense of being one nation one people that work for the common goals of the nation and stand together to fight against any kind of challenges faced by the nation, thus, can be addressed as nationalism. Until the colonization, South African Blacks were ignorant of the concept of nation and nationalism due to the absence of education. With the passage of time, western education enlightened them which aroused a sense of nationalism that led to the birth of national consciousness. This essay is an analysis of the loss of the colonial identity of the Whites and the reconstruction of the identity of the Blacks in South Africa during the post-apartheid era as depicted in John Maxwell Coetzee’s (1940 ) Disgrace (1999), and Nadine Gordimer’s (1923) July’s People (1981). According to Fearon (1999), “Identity refers either a social category defined by membership rules and characteristics attributes or expected behavior or socially distinguishing features that a person takes a special pride in or views as unchangeable but consequential.” I agree with Fearon’s idea of identity as it covers all the essential components of identity. In July’s People, Gordimer portrays the trivial colonial supremacy and power reversal between whites and Blacks during the interregnum through the characters, Maureen and her black male servant July. Coetzee’s Disgrace (1999) is a post-apartheid literary work that embodies the emergence of the new identity of South African Blacks and the diminishing power politics of whites. It deals with how the whites had to disregard their stereotyped colonial attitudes and construct a new identity in order to integrate with the Blacks of South Africa. Coetzee also reveals the power reversal of white and black through the characters such as David Lurie and his daughter Lucy with Petrus, the black African (Coetzee, 1999).

The authors have used these novels as a tool to arouse national consciousness among the Blacks toward political, economic, and social independence. Nadine Gordimer who lived in the period of the apartheid regime had witnessed the subjugation of Black South Africans. Despite being an Afrikaner she turned out to fight for the unjust apartheid laws imposed upon the blacks. She was the first white South African writer who won the noble prize in literature in 1991(Shima & Modiano, 2011). Coetzee is another Afrikaner who lived through post-apartheid and was also a noble prize winner in literature (Riding, 2003). This essay attempts to explore the policy of apartheid and its impacts, power reversal in post-apartheid, and analyze the birth of the new identities of whites and the reconstruction of identities for blacks.

The policy of apartheid was legally introduced in South Africa in 1948 by Pieter Willem Botha’s government (NP) where Blacks were subjugated in all spheres of human rights. Actually, South Africa was given political independence by the British sometime in the early twentieth century. However, being a settler colony, the power remained in the hands of the white minority in the form of a legacy. As a result, this policy fragmented South Africa and separated South Africans from the mainstream. They were deprived of their political, economic, and social rights for a considerable period of time. Soon after assuming power the government passed the bill called Population Registration Act in 1950 based on the race and color prejudice of people such as Whites, Coloured, Indian, and blacks. Grounded on this act “Group Area Act” was passed identifying ten homelands or nation-states where natives were placed. The reason for this act was to provide separate development for blacks as they were perceived as a distinct subhuman species and inferior to whites (Blakemore, 2019). Moreover, black South Africans do not have a profound historical claim over South Africa which helped the whites to take advantage of the blacks. Therefore, whites themselves occupied urban areas for their safety and privileges, relocating all the blacks into so-called nation-states. Such policy created a wider gap between the whites and the Black South African.

This policy of separateness aroused hatred in blacks against the government which led to the Sharpeville massacre in 1960 and the Soweto uprising in 1976. These movements were non-violent in nature, however, the government suppressed the crowd by killing a great number of blacks. The series of such events led to the eruption of political, economic, and social instability in the state. South Africa entered into an interregnum with the collapse of the apartheid government due to huge disparities imposed in the field of politics, education, and health upon the natives. The apartheid regime created a wider gap between the government and the black people by introducing cruel acts such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriage Act (1949), Group Area Act (1950), and Population Registration Act (1950) are some of the reasons which made black people overthrow the ruling party. In this interregnum period, it was Fredrik William de Klerk, the new president of the state who played an instrumental role and consolidated law and order in the state by negotiating the series of agreements between the government and the native people (South African History Online, 2019). Then he called for a new society without apartheid and lifted all kinds of bans and ended many of the restrictions of the apartheid. The climax of the interregnum can be recognized from the line,

“…Riots, arson, occupation of the headquarters of the international corporation, bombs in public- buildings, the censorship of newspapers, radio and television left rumor and word-of-mouth as the only source of information about this chronic state of uprising over the country.” (Gordimer, 1981, p.5).

Nadine Gordimer has presented an apocalyptic vision of a possible future in which South African whites must construct a new identity in the process of the emergence of new national consciousness. The whites were deeply rooted in the stereotyped colonial attitude that they enjoyed for a long period of time. Therefore, they were unable to come out of that shell easily to build and integrate their identities with the newly found identities of blacks in South Africa. Sales were confined, gripping on their own properties and power, and decided not to abandon their past; trying every attempt to create an economic balance within themselves. They were not convinced that the past was over and they were not aware that they need to create a new future. In July’s People, Maureen, the protagonist, depicts the negative image of the white liberals who appear dogmatic, not even willing to face reality (Shehabat & Zeidanin, 2012, p.134). “… given Wednesdays and alternate Sunday free, allowed to have his friends visit him and his town woman sleep with him in his room” (Gordimer, 1981, p. 6), this line suggests that Smales were liberal towards black servants when they were in Johannesburg, however, as the story proceeds and when they reached to July’s village they showed hypocritical nature by showing the sense of possessiveness over their bakkie and the gun. In July’s People, an apocalyptic vision of a possible future of whites is presented by taking the Smales family into July’s village where they had to face awkward and unexpected situations. They lose their material and the power possessions such as Bakkies and guns. July is in possession of the key of the Bakkie as his own and it is known from Bam’s remembrance, “As she came back into to the hut, he remembered, told her, told himself: – July’s got the keys.” (Gordimer, 1981, p. 26). Daniel, later on, takes away the gun and joins the fight against the whites also suggests overturning the power of blacks. At Jonesburg before the riots, Maureen as a master could order July but once they reach July’s village she could not order him instead lets him overtake the role of a master. On the other hand, the situation forced them to accept their new world and integrate with blacks. The rest of the Smales family could adjust among blacks in July’s community but Maureen could not adopt the new way of life. Maureen’s psyche such as the feeling of alienation, diminishing hope in life, and loss of responsibility could be explored from the line;

“She runs thrusting herself with all the suppressed trust of a lifetime, alert, like a solitary animal at the season when animals neither seek a mate nor take care of young, existing only for their lone survival, the enemy of all that would make claims of responsibility” (Gordimer, 1981, p.110).

Bam though tried to adjust his life but still has some traces of colonial hangover such as questioning regarding July taking the Bakkie without his consent. Bam did not expect July to take his belonging. He feels defeated when July takes his car without informing him. However, the three children and Bam could somehow adjust to the new environment. Maureen running away from July’s village towards the sound of an unknown helicopter, leaving her family behind indicates that she is not being able to adapt new life as she could not give up her colonial identity.

On the other hand, in Disgrace, Coetzee has intricately woven and presented the results of apartheid in the post-apartheid era through David Lurie the protagonist of the novel. David visits Soraya, the black prostitute in the town. Later he develops an illicit relationship with Melanie who was his student. These incidents conveyed to us that he is still in possession of the colonial mindset where he could do whatsoever he likes. David mentioned, “Melanie: the dark one” (Coetzee, 1999, p.18) which shows the color discrimination and dominance by whites in the apartheid era. David as a professor also violated the code of conduct of a professor by sexually abusing his student Melanie like the other white men using black women to satisfy their sexual urges during the apartheid government. Coetzee has judiciously depicted the repercussions of the apartheid colonial behaviors of the whites overturn in his Disgrace through the following sources: Petrus says, “I will Marry Lucy” (Coetzee, 1999, p. 202), this suggests that the black gaining power deal with whites. Melanie’s father Mr. Isaacs blurted that “We never thought we were sending our daughter into a nest of vipers. No, Professor Lurie, you may be high and mighty and have all kinds of degrees, but if I was you, I’d be very ashamed of myself” (Coetzee, 1999, p.16). Mr. Isaacs’s frustration depicts the growing voice of blacks over the colonial whites. The three intruders who have bitten Lurie and raped Lucy are another incident that implies the consequences of the apartheid behaviors of the whites. The faculty (chaired by Manas Mathabane) at Cape Town University says,

“… David, I can’t go on protecting you from yourself. I am tired of it, and so is the rest of the committee. Do you want time to rethink? ‘No’, ‘Very well. Then I can only say, you will be hearing from the Rector.” (Coetzee, 1999, p.58)

This statement concludes that Lurie has to face the trial and accept the verdict of the University as he denies repentance. This is why one can say that Lurie has carried colonialism supremacy. “I have no fear of the committee. I have no fear of the observer.”(Coetzee, 1999, p. 48). This line suggests that Lurie still has a colonial hangover. He presents the stereotype colonial concept through David Lurie who eventually suffers out of his misconduct from his colonial mindset. Coetzee has intricately knitted the fate of whites in the post-apartheid through David, the principal character of the novel. The post-apartheid was full of repercussions of the apartheid era presented through Lurie and his daughter. Now in the post-apartheid, the blacks overtook the position of whites in all spheres of life and exercise total advantages over the whites. For instance, Petrus marries Lucy, who was initially his master. At the same time, Lucy herself is willing to surrender everything including herself to Petrus to be his third wife if not to be a concubine. Therefore, she declares,

“… Say I accept his protection. Say he can put up whatever story he likes about our relationship and I won’t contradict him. If he wants me to be his third wife so be it. As his concubine, ditto. But then the child becomes his too. The child becomes part of his family. As for the land, say I will sign the land over to him as long as the house remains mine. I will become a tenant on his land.” (Coetzee, 1999, p. 204)

From this excerpt, one can understand that she is giving up everything for the sake of her new identity and the unborn child’s future. On the other hand, she is analytical and wise in terms of decision-making, because when she states that “The child becomes part of his family” (Coetzee, 1999, p. 20). This line speaks to Lucy’s concern for her unborn baby who needs a new identity after birth. This also depicts the submissiveness and withdrawal of superiority of the whites in the post-apartheid period. Now the responsibility and status reverse when he pulls Lucy under his patriarchal authority. The whites were forced to forget their past colonial individualities and construct completely a new one that would be integrated with the new identity of the blacks. By now it is understood that Lucy is ready for any kind of change and get assimilated with blacks. The growing power of the blacks is not only demonstrated through Petrus but also through three black intruders as they had beaten David and raped Lucy. Upon this incident, Lurie insisted his daughter lodge a complaint but then she refused to know the impending future and accepts her fortune to become Petrus’s third wife to be part of a new world. Despite her father insisting Lucy report to the police regarding the rape issue she does not accepts instead she argues with her father stating that “you tell your story and I will tell my own” because she knows the causes of the situation.

This assignment discussed the consequences of the apartheid policy faced by South African Whites during the post-apartheid era. Gordimer has touched upon the suppressive life faced by South African blacks under the apartheid policy and predicted the possible future of both South African Blacks and Whites in her novel July’s People. The implications of apartheid policy were portrayed immediately in the interregnum. On the other hand, Coetzee solely discussed the outcome of the subjugation of blacks during apartheid and its consequences in the post-apartheid era. He also deliberated how the whites had to build their new identities in order to assimilate with the reconstructed identity of the blacks. The power reversal has been portrayed through David Lurie who represented the last colonial man in the first half of the novel and the growing power of the black through Petrus and three black intruders in the second half of the novel. He projected the whites as having a tough time forgetting their colonial supremacy and the privileges they enjoyed during the apartheid government. However, they were forced to construct their new identities in order to integrate with the reconstructed identities of the South Africans. However, Lucy represents a new generation who could get acclimatized to a new situation and assimilate her new identity with the blacks by embracing Petrus. The colonialism and treacherous colonial subjugation had taught the lesson and aroused the national consciousness among the blacks. The severe betrayal by the Afrikaners awakened the sense of belongingness and the concept of freedom in Blacks of South Africa. Both Gordimer and Coetzee were successful in creating a new identity for Afrikaners and arousing the national consciousness of Blacks. Finally, Gordimer’s long-awaited aspiration of independence from South Africa was achieved and Cotzee’s wish for creating a new identity of Afrikaners and regaining of power by the blacks was fulfilled.

This research project has analysed the application of Israeli practices towards non-Jews, mainly Palestinians, both within its domestic borders, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Using the premise of international bodies such as the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the 2002 Rome Statute, a comparison has been drawn with the architect of apartheid, South Africa.

Both states incorporated different mechanisms in their handling of the indigenous demographics. South Africa’s Apartheid was in essence a system of economic exploitation. Large corporations driven by economic pursuits promoted racial discrimination and white-minority rule to the extent that it protected their capital and ensured profitability. This demanded the marginalization and disenfranchisement of the non-white majority who were forcibly removed and placed into bantustans and other segregated areas, but close enough that their labour could be integrated into the economy. Settler-colonialism of the Zionist movement was linked from its inception to the migration of Jewish people with the objective of demographic engineering and negating its indigenous Arab population, establishing a new identity. The Zionist Project endeavours to build a state with a decisive and permanent Jewish majority. Economic exploitation of the country’s resources was not integral to the regime but helpful towards achieving its primary objective: the Judaization of the land. This is the crucial difference with apartheid South Africa, which by contrast had a place, though a subordinate one for its non-white population. This poses a hindrance in envisioning a conflict resolution that results in the emergence of a bi-national or unified state for both Palestinians and Israeli Jews.

Regardless of the validity of the apartheid analogy, focusing on what terminology should be applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although a gesture of good-will, has become distracting. The Israeli government rebuffs the analogy referencing the ‘visible equality’ of its Arab-Israelis, but this is merely a cosmetic diversion and persisting inequality manifests itself in a myriad of ways and negates the structure of exclusion Israel exercises which reserves the right to be a Jewish state. Israel has been cautious in imitating the ‘petty apartheid’ and can promote itself as democratic as its Palestinian citizens constitute a minority allowing for their inconspicuous discrimination. South Africa, in contrast, overtly oppressed and dominated the black population which was less plausible to conceal as they were the overwhelming majority. The apartheid analogy within Israel proper may not fit neatly into the South African case but in certain features, there are distinct parallels. Diverging from the established proponent/opponent binary reveals that Israel correlates to certain criteria of the Apartheid Convention and nears closer to the nature of apartheid than to liberal democracy. However, in the OPTs, Israeli rule is in flagrant disregard of international law and UN resolutions. In a striking resemblance to the South African case, the attempts to create semi-autonomous homelands for their subjects have purposefully undermined any possibility of a viable economy and consigned Palestinians to a permanent state of subjugation.

Just as the holocaust is not necessarily the only definition of genocide, the Jewish holocaust is not the only definition of genocide, and South African apartheid is not what defines apartheid as a racial structure and regime. Any regime that preferences one ethnic/religious/racial group is by definition engaging in discrimination and should draw criticism. These practices manifest simultaneously so Israel resembles an apartheid state, a settler-colony and any regime that systemically favours one ethnic group while restricting a population’s ability to self-determinate.

South Africa exemplifies that the denial of the full and equal humanity of the majority of black people preceded Apartheid and has continued after Apartheid. Neoliberal restructuring has entrenched the racial capitalist system and severely undermined the nation-building effort. The abolition of the ethnic state and the terms on which it is negotiated will do much to determine reality after the transition occurs. This is perhaps the most illuminating lesson from the South African experience for Palestinian and Arab activists engaged in the Palestinian liberation movement. Moving forward, it is now imperative to critically engage with South Africa’s trajectory and collectively draw from it the pertinent lessons for the Palestinian cause.

The Apartheid Museum guides its visitors through South Africa’s dark history of institutionalized racial segregation from 1948 – 1994, the violence that plagued its opression, the activists who battled the regime and ultimately the onward journey to democracy.

Upon entering, each visitor receives a card classifying them on racial grounds (similar to the passbooks black people were required to carry with them during the Apartheid era) and is required to pass through a turnstile designated to the skin colour stated on their identity card whites and non-whites – the pervasive term given to people of different ethnicities, insinuating that whiteness was the normal standard and anyone of black, coloured, indian heritage was the ‘other’ and abnormal in society. This immediately sparks feelings of discomfort and emphasizes the illogical grounds of the racial code. There is no foyer or entrance hall where groups are able to congregate and socialize, discuss which exhibits they would like to see or layout the rout they wish to take, friends and family members are immediately divided depending on which card they received in a manner that is instantly effective.

There is a collection of shadowing concrete pillars in front of the entrance to the museum, etched with the seven principles of South Africa’s new constitution: democracy, equality, reconciliation, diversity, responsibility, respect and freedom. Each of these lay an optimistic and auspicious tone for navigating South Africa’s transition from apartheid to a ‘Rainbow Nation’ – the term coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to describe a racially diverse but united country. The steel letters used to enshrine these values are gradually wearing away with age – perhaps a metaphor conveying that these ideals are beginning to dim.

The structure of the museum observes a linear arrangement. Utilizing an amalgamation of different mediums such as documentary photography, video, text an an array of artefacts to chronicle South Africa’s complicated and racially segregated history. These narratives of apartheid history and its ostracism are separated into smaller groups and displayed over 6,000 square metres of space.

Exhibitions include Apartheid which details the social and political components that resulted in the instation of the apartheid regime and focuses attention on the apartheid era laws assed to establish the apartheid structure of government. The three most important blocks of legislation were: ‘The Race Classification Act’ (every citizen suspected of not being European was classified according to race), ‘The Mixed Marriages Act’ (it prohibited marriage between people of different races), ‘The Group Areas Act’ (it forced people of certain races into living in designated areas). The Turn to Violence segment explores the activist organizations of the African National Congress and the Pan African Congress emergence as underground militant groups following the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre, The Homelands and The Truth and Reconcilliation Commission.

On the other side of the turnstile entrances, there are two dark pathways bordered by wire cages displaying the magnified replicas of identity documents that classed Africans and Europeans respecively under the gaze of Apartheid.

Probably the most harrowing of exhbitiions on display is the noose installation which is a symbolic representation for those who were politically executed. The intention here is to not just to depict history, but to invoke empathy. This is in line with the contemporary direction many museums have taken in deepening visitor’ perspective through emotions as opposed to stringent fact-based narratives.

One can gather that the museum’s objective for referring to the violent nature of the Apartheid regime in a conceptul manner is significant in educating the youth of South Africa. Williams notes that child focussed exhibitions tend to abstract the nature of violence. Williams contends that through this abstraction there often often tends to be an undermining of the role perpetrators, but this is not evident in the Apartheid Museum who makes use of several abstract installations, as the political ideologies that framed the regime are ubiquitous throughout.

There are twenty-two installations and sculptures interspersed both inside and outside. These permanent exhibitions are accompanied by a temporary exhibition space that’s subject matter is always relevant to the Apartheid Era. Themes and concepts have been propounded by artists writers, and notable movements such as the female empowerment space and segregation in the United States. I was fortunate enough to attend panel discussion ‘The Black Body: (Still) a Site of Oppression?’. Exploring what it means to live in a black body. one that has been and still is under attack, whether from racist cops, or institutionally racist educational, corporate and other spaces.

All museums, generally speaking, make provisions in educating not only tourists visiting the country but also its own citizens. The Apartheid Museum strives to reach two groups. First, those who visit out of their own inclination to gain knowledge of a significant chapter in history in a cultural setting and secondly, the youth of South Africa often referred to as as the ‘born free generation’ who tend to visit on school tours, influenced by their elders, teachers and politicians to gain an in depth understanding of the historical journey their country has endured and how that in turn has shaped their modern society. Rather than acting as a reconciliation centre for those who survived Apartheid, the museum’s intention is to broaden the horizons of generations who did not live through apartheid and inititiate a discourse on its full history.

The Museum officially opened in November of 2001, seven years after South Africa’s first democratic elections were held and Nelson Mandela was appointed its first black president. The museum was not conceptualized by the ANC government, but funded by businessmen Solly and Abe Krok as apart of a ‘social responsibility’ requirement in trying to secure the rights for a casino and amusement park, which are situated next to the museum.

The term “Apartheid” is an Afrikaans word meaning “separateness” and is the name for the system of racial segregation that governed South Africa for nearly 50 years, where rules were put in place to protect the domination of the white South Africans over the non white South Africans in every aspect of life. The Afrikaans are Dutch white people who had settled in Africa in around the 17th century and spoke their own language derived from African. The Apartheid was created by the Afrikaans led national party in 1948. This wasn’t the beginning of the mistreatment of native Africans as it had been going on since the arrival of the Dutch.

Afrikaners believed that South Africa was their “God-given homeland” and that the white race was superior. So in the colonial grab for the country between the Dutch descended Afrikaners and the British the rights of native South Africans were put aside. The Apartheid called for the separate development of the different racial groups in South Africa. The idea was for equal development and freedom of cultural expression, but the way it was implemented made this impossible for anyone not white. During the Apartheid the natives were divided into 10 “homelands” based on their tribal groups. The land they were given was rural, overcrowded and lacked jobs creating a mass cycle of poverty that severely impacted the position of Africa’s economy today.

When the Apartheid was at its peak natives had to carry IDs on them at all times, obey a strict curfew, use separate public facilities for non white use, they couldn’t marry or live with the opposite race and the only time when they were near someone of the opposite race was when they were working, usually for them as a labourer or servant where their wages were low and it was illegal for them to strike. This is why the Apartheid was also economically motivated, as it created a cheap workforce which could be used in the country’s recently opened goldmines at the time. Powerful mining businesses relied heavily on Apartheid polices as their profits depended on keeping black wages low.

Mandatory education ended at age 13 for natives which was structured to funnel the black community into menial migrant labour. The fact that the state set up a separate education system for non-whites, which received only a fraction of the funding of the white schools was further used to exploit them into the same cycle of labour and lack of education. This act of profiteering was not taken lightly though. Resistance in protests were often led by black students and were met with severe repression by national authorities. The black majority was already seen as a threat by the whites so when the protests began to grow in popularity they were met by massacres and thousands of black and white deaths around the world with rebel groups led by leaders such as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr leading the black resistance in America.

Africa’s Apartheid was officially lifted in 1994 when Nelson Mandela was the first democratically elected president. Nelson Mandela was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionary and political leader who served as South Africa’s President from 1994 to 1999 and died at age 95 in 2013.

To sum it up the Apartheid was a large injustice of human rights fueled by the idea of a master race and the money and greed of powerful people who thrived off the cheap labour of the coloured. All this may seem far in the past but the fact is that for the human race we’ve only recently overcome this policy and are still are far from undoing the damage it has caused to society around the world. There’s no point in apologising for something we can’t fix now, but there is one in helping to make it better for the future.

The Republic of South Africa, is a nation located at the Southern most tip of the Continent . It has a population of fifty seven million making it the twenty fourth most populated nation in the world covering an area of 1.22 milion square miles. A majority of its population belonging to Sub-Saharan African ancestry.The remaining consists of Africa’s largest communities of European, Asian and multiracial ancestry.

Portuguese the first Europeans to inhabit South Africa, in 1488. In 1652 the Dutch East India Company established a small settlement at the Cape of Good Hope. Other Europeans settled in the country. They can to be known as the Afrikaners. South Africa’s economy has grown significantly in the early 21st century. It’s economic prowess making it a member of the BRICS, an acronym that stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, countries deemed to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic growth.

Recently slowing down, it suffers from high unemployment, widespread poverty, corruption, xenophobia etc. However it still stands among hegemonies in Africa. This paper looks at the manner in which the country’s foreign policy activities are managed and derived: who are key players in foreign policy decision making? Also attempting to link these foreign policy decisions to the theories of International relations.

South Africa’s contemporary foreign policy cannot be understood without explaining its post- apartheid political transition. Gaining independence in 1910, it had semi –independent governace, still accountable to the Westminster parliament. Elections were first held in 1948, The National Party was elected . A party with majority of white Dutch as members. Their administration introduced the apartheid regime. This is a racial segregation policy separating where South Africa on racial lines. It dictated relations between the country’s white minority and non -white majority sanctioning racial privileges were allowed according to race. Its enactment ,the separate development, was conceptualized through the 1959 Population Registration Act, it classified all South Africans as either all black Africans (Bantus), the mixed race (Coloured) or white and a fourth category—Indian and Pakistani (Asian).

From 1961 – 1994 the state president office and the prime minister’s office governed the country. Constitutional amendment in 1983- 1993 lead to a new dawn in South Africa. In 1994,there were national elections. Native blacks were given voting rights. Nelson Mandela on an African National Congress (ANC) ticket was elected as the president.

Characteristically, in a pluralistic society, such as a democracy, major policies are assumed to originate from negotiations and compromise among the competing parties (Mahler 1995: 143). A post-apartheied South Africa, democraticly indulging a foreign policy approach, democratized in nature was expected to reflect the interests of competing groups and constituencies. Writing on foreign policy in African countries, Khadiagala and Lyons (2001: 5) notes, on such mates decisions made have always been the province of leading personalities.

Foreign affairs matters can be said to be approached as the prerogative of presidents and prime ministers fitted together with post-colonial patterns of domestic power consideration. Environments where structures of contribution and contesting mainly political parties and legislatures deteriorate significantly, charismatic leader becomes a model embodiment of foreign policy. In addition, over three decades ago, Aluko (1977: 10) noted African foreign ministries, thought of as main initiators of international interactions, were actually the president’s emissaries.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela. Born on July 18th 1918 he died on December 5th 2013. He was South Africa’s anti- apartheid radical, political leader, and philanthropist. Serving as their President from 1994 to 1999. The country’s first elected black native head of state in a fully representative democratic election. He steered his government towards undoing the legacy of racial discrimination due to the apartheid regime. Promoting racial reconciliation, Nelson gained the reputation of an African nationalist and socialist.

Internationally recognized for the part he played during the anti-apartheid struggle. He was once a Johannesburg lawyer. Later taking part in anti-colonial legislations he co-founded the Youth League, the African National Congress (ANC).Leading its functions as from 1991 to 1997. Initiated in 1912 at Bloemfontein, The African National Congress (ANC) is South Africa’s governing party and has been in power since the transition to democracy in April 1994.

The government of South African president F.W. de Klerk 1990–91, provided a basis for apartheid legally. Structured racial segregation continued profoundly rooted in South African society. Leading numerous demonstrations, Mandela ended up futilely accused of treason. Arranging and leading a sabotage movement against the government, he was arrested in 1962. Serving twenty seven years of his awarded life on Robben Island, Pollsmoor and finally in Victor Vester. He got his release from prison on February 1990. A new constitution that liberated blacks and other racial groups was embedded in 1993 and became actualized in 1994.

Although Mandela was president for a single term, what he had put in during the anti-apartheid struggle and rebuilding of his nation, earned him the title “father of the nation”. The all-race national elections, in 1994, lead to an alliance government being formed a majority being black natives, Nelson Mandela, led as the first black president marking renewal for the Southern nation.

Before the 1994 election, marking a new dawn for the South African nation, President Mandela had published an editorial in Foreign Affairs. He defined the principles and objectives of the foreign policy, an ANC vision of governance. March 2004 brought the release of a Strategic Plan for 2003–2005, by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).The Mandela administration made it its obligation to make every effort towards attaining a ‘more just’ world order. As president , he emphasized the need for international law to be seriously observed. The diplomatic conduct of foreign affairs being rooted on negotiation as a tool for conflict resolution became a regulatory principle of foreign policy.

Perceived by South Africans as the father of the nation, Mandela was regarded a savior sent from heaven redeeming the state from the bondage of apartheid. Consequently, Mandela delighted in considerable freedom in dictating foreign policy decisions. His choice of chastising Sani Abacha, Nigerian strongman, in 1995, over the latter’s human rights abuses (Block 1995), was never debated by either the nation’s cabinet or parliament.

Mandela becoming a president in South Africa, served to model him and South African s, a nation symbolizing reconciliation and peace bringing. Shadowed by their past of apartheid, the external policy reflecting democratic South Africa geared toward putting emphasis on human rights and democracy.

South Africa, a nation once deeply divided by apartheid, is now trying to mend its wounds by uniting under the banners of cosmopolitanism and nationalism. South Africa’s vital interest lies in the need to strengthen its national identity whilst recognizing its role in contributing to the cosmopolitan ideal of Ubuntu, specifically on the African continent. Ubuntu is a traditional isiZulu phrase which translates to “I am because you are” (5) and is centered on fostering collective growth in a community. This paper primarily focuses on the development of post-apartheid South Africa. It should be noted that the social and political structures currently in place have been influenced by both pre-colonial and colonial history. Henceforth, this paper will examine the extent to which hosting international sporting events such as the 2010 FIFA World Cup fostered nationalism. Contrastingly, this paper will evaluate the xenophobic attacks on African immigrants and their impact on cosmopolitanism. Finally, this paper will discuss practical strategies to strike a balance between shaping a South African identity whilst being more inclusive of foreign nationals.

Post-apartheid leaders use major sporting events to shape nationalism. South Africa has played host to many international sporting events across sporting codes namely the: 1995 Rugby World Cup, 1996 African Nations Cup, 2003 Cricket World Cup and 2010 FIFA World Cup (6). Nelson Mandela recognized the important role that sport had in tearing down the racial barriers imposed by apartheid and to unite a once divided people, to fulfill the vision of a rainbow nation. Hence, he symbolically supported the springbok national rugby team at the 1995 Rugby World Cup finals by handing over the trophy to the team after defeating New Zealand. This was important he allowed the white minority to hold onto the Springbok emblem which informed part of their identity, regardless of its apartheid connotations. As a result, he was able to win over the support of the white minority who were skeptical of a democratic nation and reinforced the idea of an inclusive rainbow nation (2).

South Africa hosting the 2010 FIFA world cup was not only an opportunity to showcase her diverse cultures but also to represent the African continent worldwide. Nationalists argue that the branding of nationalism that occurs during sporting events is not authentic. Zola Moseko observes that ‘A lot of whites have two flags on their cars, a South African flag and a European one” (7). This observation sheds light on a problem white South Africans faced when identifying as South African which is contrary to the short term nationalism sparked by the Rugby World Cup. Dale Mckinley reaffirms Moseko’s argument and describes the feelings associated with the World Cup as ‘feel-good nationalism’. He further argues that the World Cup failed in being a vehicle for economic, social and political development that would benefit everyone, including the poor. Therefore, we can gather than Nationalism is more than just a feeling, it can also be expressed by actions to develop one’s community. Achille Mbembe adds a third layer to strengthen nationalism by adding that sustainable nationalism can be achieved through actions such as the de-racialization of cities and the promotion of cultures of conviviality through acts like changing street names. Thus, true nationalism in South Africa can be achieved deracializing current systems to create a society that embraces diversity and tolerance.

Cosmopolitans argue that hosting the World Cup was not just a victory to South Africa but the continent as a whole. Joseph Nye posits that “South Africa represented itself as a home of Ubuntu, an epicenter of the African Renaissance, a model of a working, multiracial ‘rainbow’ society and a successful transitional African State”. This is significant as global media is saturated with images portraying African states as unstable due to civil war, famine, corrupt politicians and undeveloped infrastructure. South Africa’s Minister of Sports, Makhenkesi Stofile further elaborated on South Africa’s responsibility to the continent by stating, “The 2010 World Cup is Africa’s time. The entire continent must work together to consolidate the African solidarity around this project – the African showpiece”. The 2010 FIFA World Cup challenged the world to look beyond the headlines and appreciate African states for the diverse cultures they inhabit, the hospitality of the people and, importantly, being capable of successfully hosting an event of that magnitude.

Despite its efforts to foster Ubuntu, South Africa remains highly prejudice towards foreign nationals, specifically African migrant workers. It is estimated that 3.6 million migrants are living in South Africa with 70% entering from Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Lesotho. Historically, migrants have been met with frequent xenophobic attacks with the most dangerous attack occurring in 2008 which left 60 people killed and thousands more displaced. In a study conducted by Dr. Mondli Hlatshwayo, a migrant worker describes his experiences as: “We are not part of unions. We have no rights. We earn starvation wages. We are victimized by the police and some South Africans”. The treatment of foreign nationals places a great strain on diplomatic relations as it tarnishes the image of South Africa as a cosmopolitan state. Nationalists argue that the protection of the South African citizen is a priority as illegal immigrants are accused of crimes such as drug trafficking. From an economic perspective, foreigners are a threat as they are accused of selling fake goods. From a moral standpoint, I believe that South Africa is obliged to assist fellow Africans as they opened their borders to political leaders in exile during apartheid. Furthermore, hyper-nationalism is detrimental as it reinstates the type of separatist thinking enforced by the apartheid government and prevents South Africa from assimilating with other African states (8).

I believe that there is no losing side when it comes to nationalism and cosmopolitanism and both have a role to play in both the development of South African and of the African continent. For far too long South Africa has been divided by colonialism and apartheid and by successfully uniting the nation, it serves as an inspiration for other African states to do the same. Makgoba expresses an ideal South African state through Ubuntu as an accommodating principle that transcends race and culture which is not linked to the material world. Through a cosmopolitan lens, he described Ubuntu as being an invisible force that united Africans worldwide and with a form of mutual respect as we share one big heritage.

Two main strategies that can be utilized include: liberating the minds of the previously marginalized people and adopting the label of an African citizen. Undoing the prejudice thinking instilled by apartheid can be achieved through education. Firstly, previously marginalized South Africans need to recognize themselves as subjects and not citizens, Mkhable and Luthuli stated (3). This form of citizenship education will help them see themselves as responsible to both their country and be open to other people in their community. Through exploring the works of Antjie Krog, author of Begging to be Black, a sense of empathy is invoked as one can learn the experience of a white female of Dutch heritage longing to claim a South African identity. Her work is a form of progressive nationalism which is essential in constructing an inclusive South African identity.

Secondly, one must recognize themselves as an African citizen. Being an African citizen is not restricted to geographical borders is broadened to accommodate similar cultures, languages, and heritage of the continent. The term Afropolitanism has been coined to describe an African sense of Cosmopolitanism. Achille Mbembe interprets Afropolitanism as the ability to “recognize one’s face in that of a foreigner” (4). Additionally, I believe that recognizing oneself as an Afropolitan gives one a responsibility to work towards developing the continent as a whole.

The story of apartheid South Africa was one of a state which robbed its people of the power to be themselves. The leaders of post-apartheid South Africa are erasing the prejudices of the past and rewriting the narrative of a people who are proud of their heritage. Their immediate focus is to strengthen nationalism and their progress can be seen in the ambitious hosting of sports events. However, they struggle to translate the short-lived nationalism into something permanent. On a larger scale, South Africa has been influential in acting as a representative of the African continent. This role has not been completely fulfilled as xenophobic attacks still propagate prejudice. Hence, strategies that the state can employ to fulfill both its vital interest of strengthening identity and its additional responsibility towards developing Africa is facilitated by Ubuntu. These strategies include: liberating the mind of the populace through citizenship education and adopting an African identity. By striking a balance in its nationalist and cosmopolitan interests, the country can continue to strive towards being a powerful state.

Bibliography

1. Coundouriotis, Eleni. ‘Rethinking Cosmopolitanism in Nadine Gordimer’s ‘The Conservationist’.’ College Literature 33, no. 3 (2006): 1-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115364.
2. Edwards, Piers. “For Nelson Mandela, Sports Were Major Weapon against Racism.” CNN, 6 Dec. 2013, www.cnn.com/2013/12/05/world/africa/nelson-mandela-sports/index.html.
3. Enslin, Penny, and Kai Horsthemke. ‘Can Ubuntu Provide a Model for Citizenship Education in African Democracies?’ Comparative Education 40, no. 4 (2004): 545-58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4134626.aa
4. Eze, Chielozona. ‘Transcultural Affinity: Thoughts on the Emergent Cosmopolitan Imagination in South Africa.’ Journal of African Cultural Studies 27, no. 2 (2015): 216-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24758449.
5. Ifejika, Nkem. “What Does Ubuntu Really Mean?” The Guardian, 28 Sept. 2006, www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2006/sep/29/features11.g2.
6. Mafika. “Hosting the Big Sporting Events.” Brand South Africa, 27 July 2017, www.brandsouthafrica.com/people-culture/sport/features/south-africa-hosts-some-of-the-worlds-biggest-sporting-events.
7. Ndlovu-gatsheni, sabelo j. ‘the world cup, vuvuzelas, flag-waving patriots and the burden of building south Africa.’ third world quarterly 32, no. 2 (2011): 279-93. Http://www.jstor.org/stable/41300230.
8. “South Africa: How Common Are Xenophobic Attacks?” BBC News, October 2, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47800718.
9. Williams, Donovan. ‘African Nationalism in South Africa: Origins and Problems.’ The Journal of African History 11, no. 3 (1970): 371-83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/180344.
10. ‘Xenophobia, Resilience, and Resistance of Immigrant Workers in South Africa: Collective and Individual Responses.’ In Just Work?: Migrant Workers’ Struggles Today, edited by Hlatshwayo Mondli and Choudry Aziz, 21-40. London: Pluto Press, 2016. DOI:10.2307/j.ctt194xgtm.6.