The end of the tunnel

R&G1
Originally uploaded by Xjan1

In Bramshill, UK. It was quite dark and a car passed from behind. I quite like the red lines mirroring the wooden structure on the left.

Stop this Zilliness!

“The ANC on Wednesday rebuked the ANC Youth League for what it termed a "deeply embarrassing" attack on DA leader Zille after she accused President Jacob Zuma of putting his three wives at risk of contracting HIV… Zille was quoted in the press on Tuesday as saying: "Zuma is a self-confessed womaniser with deeply sexist views, who put all his wives at risk by having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive woman." (Mail & Guardian, http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-05-13-hrc-worried-as-more-mud-flies.)

I am also deeply embarrassed that grown ups and those in the process of growing up are using labels and stereotypes at a time when our country should all unite and be proud of the way we democratically changed guard and the political landscape through peaceful elections.  I am ashamed that some leaders just can’t seem to grasp the importance of magnanimity and self-control at a time when racialism is on the increase. Who would have imagined that 15 years since Madiba promised “Never Again…!” leaders would say things like:

Malema: “Zille is a white madam.”

Zille: “Malema is an inkwenkwe“ (uncircumsized boy).

Malema: “Zille is a racist little girl.”

Zille: “Zuma is a self confessed womanizer.”

Zille: “Stop Zuma!”

Mantashe: “Zille is now enemy number one.”

The list of insults doesn’t stop here.  What kind of nonsense is this?  It is absolutely pathetic! Tit for tat. You curse me, I curse you back. Not even kids stoop so low.  I add my voice to fellow South Africans (well done Azapo!) who voice their outrage at such despicable behaviour and demand an end to this nonsense.

HRC media officer Vincent Moaga is absolutely correct: "The country does not need this right now."

What is needed right now are serious and grown up leaders and committed citizens who help one another to “walk together” – not apart or behind – as the Dinokeng Scenarios point out (http://www.dinokengscenarios.co.za/).  The way to do that is not to dish out insults, but to dialogue and listen and nurse respect and tolerance.  In that way the legacies of our past, such as racism, disrespect, sexism, inequality, destructive disengagement, and apartness become relics which traces can only be found in the apartheid museum.

I congratulate President Jacob Zuma for showing leadership in working towards unity.  I am not proud about some aspects of his life – hey, who is perfect?—but I am proud that he is displaying the kind of attitude that has the potential to bring us closer. At least he is showing magnanimity in victory and in the face of hostility. Zille should know that she will have to work with Zuma.  Respect will go a lot further than shooting from below the hip.  Ask Pieter Mulder and look at the possibilities for new mindsets.

Zuma is good for the country insofar as co-existence and relationship building is concerned. If it were not for Zuma’s leadership, social intelligence and conciliation efforts, KwaZulu Natal and possibly the whole country could have erupted into protracted violent conflict prior to our 1994 elections.  When I visited Burundi, people say that of all the mediators in Burundi Jacob Zuma stands out as probably the best.  Léonidas Nijimbere, a Burundian who writes about the Burundian peace process, confirms this in a Berghof publication: “The former vice president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma,is the kind of facilitator needed for difficult moments. He combines wisdom, calm, and patience: those human qualities needed to convince the most stubborn minds. By telling anecdotes he manipulated the feelings of the participants, thereby suggesting the real solutions to the problems at stake. Each party thought it had received most comprehension, as he was able to show compassion with everyone. Under his facilitation we achieved the various ceasefire agreements in 2002 and 2003.” (http://www.berghof-peacesupport.org/mediation_negotiation.htm.)

I am writing this piece as I sit in Sierra Leone where I work with the Political Parties Registration Committee.  It is a constitutional commission set up to mediate in conflicts within or between political parties, amongst other things. This committee has literally saved the country during the 2007 national elections from relapsing into elements of civil war. 

Sierra Leone, ravaged by 10 years of civil war, and still very poor, is ahead of South Africa in the way it deals with party political conflict.  Maybe the Sierra Leoneans should not have asked for a South African to help them doing their conflict prevention work better.  Maybe the South Africans should have asked the Sierra Leoneans to come and help us.  Yes, maybe the South African leaders should sit at the feet of their African brothers and sisters who know first hand the devastation caused by insults and violence.  At least they know how to continue the journey towards reconciliation.

Obama and Mandela

In 1994 I stood 5 meters behind my new President, Nelson Mandela, as he gave his acceptance speech from the balcony of the Cape Town City Hall. That day I realised that freedom had also come for me and that I was part of a new beginning.

Yesterday, on January 20th, 2009, I could nowhere come close to Obama, but I was in the crowd of 2 million people, watching on big screens as he took the oath of office. Once again I felt so privileged to watch history in the making. For the first time ever there is a President in the White House who speaks, for most part, the language of inclusion, humility and conflict transformation.

I saw old people in wheel chairs, young babies carried by their parents and young people smiling and cheering. I saw flags waving and people enjoying every moment. A day of inspiration. A term of change.

I'm now heading home for South Africa this afternoon, my spirit lifted and my heart full of hope.

My pictures can be viewed at http://picasaweb.google.com/spies.c/InTheObamaCrowd20Jan2009#

Sara Henkeman on dialogue

 Dear Chris, thanks for your inspired idea to prod us to go beyond the private ‘geween en gekners van tande’ to propose a generative conversation.  Thanks too Reggie and Derrick for your contributions about the judiciary and the palaver tree. 

After more than a decade of being a beneficiary of our democracy – becoming more skilled and more ‘educated’ – I see more and more how these very benefits that I am so grateful for, contribute to our deep state of denial about the fact that too many don’t have these benefits.

 I agree that the task of peacebuilders is to provide spaces for people to turn to.  Parallel to that, one of our first tasks, at which we fail most miserably, is to use our collective voice to speak truth to power, not only on how to deal with the manifestations of conflict, but to squarely face its deeprooted causes and/or correllates, and to deal with it as decisively as we dealt with apartheid.

 One of the main and bitter problems in this country is the psychological impact of intergenerational oppression and what it has spawned.  A related problem is the compounded and discrete impact of intergenerational poverty.  These interlock to choke off the spiritual, human, social, cultural, political, economic, and ecological development we seek.

 As a peacebuilder, I am tired of dealing with symptoms – as Chomsky pointed out - it only produces happy oppressed people.  Too many people are economically oppressed and they live miserable lives.  Miserable lives lead to horrific acts, particularly if you feel you have nothing to lose.

If your plan includes a vertical axis that intersects with the horizontal idea of safe spaces, I’m in.

 Love & Peace

Sarah

In the Shade of the Palaver Tree

Derrik Marco's comments on my piece "Dialogue without contest: A table has no podium." refers to the conflict resolution practice in the Shade of the Palaver Tree. He kindly provided the link to the article by UNESCO Courier journalist Jasmine Sopova. The site is: http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_05/uk/signes/txt2.htm. Derrick writes: Your request (for dialogue spaces -- ed.) is so timely - especially since the new challenges we face in SA."

Dialogue without contest: A table has no podium.

"All wars eventually end where they should have been prevented in the first place: around a table", said Kenneth Daniels, a Guyanese, to me one day. How true!  So what will it take to foster a culture of talking instead of fighting?  How can we in South Africa rediscover the value of dialogue at the table instead of jumping on podiums? How can we use our mouths differently? Do all our spaces for interaction have to become battlefields for power?  Thinking about Zimbabwe and most other conflict areas I wonder why dialogue is in most cases the absolute last option, after everything else has failed? In South Africa we have a different story on which we can build.

In the 80s and 90s there was a very healthy democratic culture in the liberation struggle in South Africa. Eventually even the apartheid government, thank goodness, had to realise the value of dialogue. Throughout this period lively debates and negotiations (we talk because we have to)  happened alongside a growing culture of dialogue (we talk because we want to). Pregs Govender wrote a couple of years ago in the Mail and Guardian about the value of and respect for "collective thinking” in the African National Congress that she admired so much. Creative ideas and counter ideas were generated and, through respectful deliberations, the best ideas of the collective were accepted and acted upon. Bold decisions were taken and people could commit to decisions because they felt valued and consulted. Many people in the country, I think, credited our transition to democracy partly to the fact that the people of South Africa refused to let go of one another. There was a strong awareness of the spirit and ideals of the Freedom Charter and our new constitution paved the way for people to trust that their rights, alongside the rights of all our people, would be protected and their dreams realized.

However, the spirit and culture of democracy has been seriously eroded over the last 10 years.  "Collective thinking" was sacrificed on the altar of "group thinking", which means that those people who were closest to the views of the centre of power in the executive prevailed over others who had different views.  Here the examples of HIV-denial and the way the executive dealt with Zimbabwe come to mind.  Peter Senge and co authors write about groupthink in Presence, (p31-21) as follows: "The Voice of Judgment can stifle creativity for groups as surely as for individuals.  It is what we typically call 'groupthink', the continual albeit often subtle, censoring of honesty and authenticity in a team. The collective Voice of Judgment tells people what they should and shouldn't say, do and even think.  Often, its effects become evident only in retrospect…"

Parliament -- mostly a forum for heckling and very seldom a forum for dialogue -- lost much of its oversight capacity over time because MPs could not dare to break ranks.  A culture of fear to speak your mind and to criticise the dominant and powerful voices discouraged independent thinking and action. This situation was exacerbated by weakened organisational structures of the ANC and civic organisations on the ground.  In the 80s and 90s the ANC and United Democratic Front (UDF) had structures on the ground that dealt effectively with short term crises and medium and longer-term ground-swell issues that arose.  It was therefore, for example, possible for the ANC and its partners to contain the mass anger over the assassination of Chris Hani and to prevent the outbreak of full-scale revenge attacks because there was strong leadership at national, regional and local levels. This is no longer the case.  The scale and impact of the recent outbreak of xenophobic attacks were most devastating in communities were there were no or weak leadership structures or mechanisms. Government watched helplessly as people who are protected under our constitution were fleeing their attackers with no one to run to. 

Before and during the 1994 elections the tensions were far worse than today, but there was a very a very important safety-valve mechanism in place: The National Peace Accord (NPA) structures at national, regional and local levels.  The National Peace Secretariat, Regional and Local Peace Committees were inclusive, credible and agile forums that provided people a safe physical and process space to mediate and facilitate solutions to thousands of potentially destructive conflicts.  They used dialogue, joint problem solving and monitoring. Ordinary people had an opportunity to discuss issues threatening peace.  Politicians and police, government and NGOs, religious and cultural leaders, housewives and business executives collectively held one another accountable. There was a sense of ownership of  processes that affected them.  

Since the disbanding of the National Peace Accord structures and the conclusion of the negotiations for a new constitution there have been virtually no safe spaces for creative and generative dialogue and cohesion-building. That is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons for the growing intolerance and xenophobic attacks.  Where do people meet without defending or attacking each other?  And where do people explore ways to overcome problems in spaces that are free of political contest?  Radio talk stations are doing a fantastic job in amplifying people's voices, but  in itself it has little potential to change behaviour because people are not meeting fact to face. There are very few safe spaces where people can meet and dialogue in the absence of politicians who push group thinking.  We have lost the spaces to connect to each other with the sole purpose of building a cohesive society.  People are caught between ignorance and fear, without hope-giving and enlightened guidance and inspiration by leaders, on the one hand, and without access to constructive processes, on the other hand. 

This is where I would like to invite you to explore me some ideas on how to help turn this situation around.  How do we work towards the design and facilitation of safe spaces in ways that are empowering and reconciling? How does one help leaders and ordinary people to separate politically contested spaces (which is the arena for party politics and the current default style of discourse in and via the media) from safe spaces where people can explore ways to "see with fresh eyes"? How do we stimulate dialogue at various levels? How do we build cohesive societies that are working together to overcome the hurts of the past? How can we reclaim the momentum and right to determine the direction of processes that impact on poverty alleviation, economic growth and socio-economic development? Who needs to talk, how and when?

Is it time for a new round of scenario building processes along the same lines as the Mont Fleur scenarios during the early 90s?  I'm sure some private sector companies are undertaking research into scenarios, which is helpful, but I think we need an inclusive process that involves polity, business and civil society. 

Isn't it time to seriously engage with one another on how to ensure that South Africa leads the way to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and sustainable development and that our progress does not depend on whether whether Mbeki or Zuma is president?  

How do we build a common understanding of what sustainable development is?  Nicanor Perlas, in my opinion, gives a crucial perspective on and framework for sustainable development in his book "Shaping Globalization. Civil Society, Cultural Power and Threefolding".   Sustainable development, he says, has seven dimensions: Spiritual Development, Human Development, Social Development, Cultural Development, Political Development, Economic Development, and Ecological Development. I particularly like this framework because it goes beyond the usual focus on economic and political stability.  In all the other six dimensions we are seriously lacking.  

What we need is generative dialogue: conversations that will help us generate something new, something that goes beyond what is there for all to see.  

The question is how to make the dream of Sharunas Paunksnis  a reality:  “Today, the voice of power is much louder than the voice of dialogue, and our hope is that someday the latter will dominate both politics and public perception.”

I look forward to tap into your wisdom, so please leave a comment below.

The Accra Agenda for Action -- one further step towards aid effectiveness

In my work with politicians, business, civil society and international organisations I'm often struck by how few people know about agreements between developing countries and donor countries and organisations on how to ensure that aid is delivered more effectively.  In some cases people say "I have heard about the Paris Declaration, but they cannot recall ever using it in their work.  A new chapter has now been added to this process in the form of the Accra Agenda for Action.  "Ministers of developing and donor countries responsible for promoting development and Heads of multilateral and bilateral development institutions met in Ghana on 4 September 2008 and endorsed the Accra Agenda for Action, to accelerate and deepen implementation of the Paris Declaration

on Aid Effectiveness (2 March 2005)." 

The signatories of the Accra Agenda for Action say they are committed to eradicating poverty and promoting peace and prosperity by building stronger, more effective partnerships that enable developing countries to realise their development goals. Progress has been made, but not enough as more than "1.4 billion people—most of them women and girls—still live in extreme poverty,1 and access to safe drinking water and health care remains a major issue in many parts of the world." But one of the most important reasons why aid is not effective is defragmentation.  In Scramble for Africa the Economist provides chilling evidence of how ineffective aid is, despite all the "generosity of the West" -- a questionable statement, to say the least. The article is a must read.

Learn from the San People!

In 1997 I was privileged to work with the San people in the Kgalagadi desert.  We had a workshop where internal leadership struggles in the San community surfaced as a major issue.  I asked them to make a drawing of what peace looks like.  Without hesitation two people, one on each side of a flipchart on the ground, started to draw this picture.  Explaining this to the rest of us, they said:  "People are spiritual beings.  That's why we don't draw feet. And we're all connected to the animals.  Hence the animal heads.  Peace happens when people who are ready to fight pause; put down their weapons on the ground; sit down and talk to each other; and then exchange their weapons to seal the peace."  Remarking that they had painted only three phases, I asked them what would the fourth phase be.  They said: "We will only draw one person, because the two of them are one now." 

Isn't the courage to talk instead of fight the first step to peace?  And why can't all wars be prevented in the same manner as most of them end: through dialogue?

Kinders, moenie met die water mors nie! / Don't upset the water!

Ek lees nou die dag in 'n boek van Peter Senge met die titel "Presence" van Professor Masaru Emoto se navorsing oor hoe water kristalle reageer op iets soos musiek en gebed. Dit was 'n kopswaai-oomblik toe ek besef dat water ook lewe is en dat water reageer op emosies en gedagtes.  Prof Emoto was hierdie week in Suid Afrika.  Gaan lees gerus hieroor by http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-09-04-dont-upset-the-water en http://www.zerisa.org/Photo_Gallery_Images_of_Water_crystals.html.

I recently read in "Presence" by Peter Senge of Professor Masaru Emoto's research on the impact of our thoughts on the reality of how water crystals are affected.  It was a real eye opener to realise that water is life and that it can react to emotions and thoughts.  Prof Emoto visited South Africa this week. You can read more about this at  http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-09-04-dont-upset-the-water and http://www.zerisa.org/Photo_Gallery_Images_of_Water_crystals.html.

Annatjie en Chris Spies

Vandag, 7 September, sou my ma 80 gewees het. Sy is kort op 10 Februarie 1981, een week voor my verjaardag,  in 'n motorongeluk naby Swellendam dood.  My kinders het nooit die voorreg gehad om hierdie besondere mens te ken nie!  Sy sal vir altyd in ons herinneringe bly lewe.  My pa is op 23 Februarie 2006 ook in 'n motorongeluk op die N2 dood.  Ons eer hulle nalatenskap. 

Today, 7 September, my mother would have turned 80 years.  She died on 10 February 1981, one week before my birthday, in a motor car accident near Swellendam.  My children never had the privilege of knowing their unique and beautiful  grandmother.  We salute her and cherish her legacy. My dad also died in a motor car accident on the N2 on 23 February 2006.  They will always be honoured for their love and legacies.