Author Archive

The South African Menell Media Fellows

By Anthea Garman

The South African Menell Media Fellows (a group of about 20 journalists who’ve participated in the programme run at Duke University and funded by the Menell family) held a one-day conference on Sunday in Cape Town to ask the tough question about how journalism in South Africa can face the future with hope and purpose while new legislation threatens freedom of expression and social media is eroding established ways of making (and paying for) news. Anthea Garman (who was one of the first fellows to visit the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke with the SABC’s Angie Kapelianis in 2000) reflects on the day.

There are almost no journalists’ organisations left in this country, a situation which I think is really dire. It means that journalists don’t have forums of solidarity in which to transcend their competitive environments and speak about the issues that concern them all – issues like the Protection of Information Bill, the media appeals tribunal, the Press Freedom Commission, the judicial review of Constitutional Court decisions being called for by Jacob Zuma and the eroding ground on which most mainstream media has operated for years economically. So the day hosted by the Menell Fellows was a really important gathering and the key speakers didn’t disappoint.

James Joseph, a professor of the practice of public policy, director of the Southern African Centre for Leadership and Public Values and a former ambassador to South Africa in the Bill Clinton regime, started off the day with a heartfelt appeal to think urgently about credible and ethical journalism. He was of the opinion that unless journalism stopped “serving elites and attacking elites”, demands for government regulation of journalism could not be avoided. As a fan of civic journalism, Joseph leans heavily on the need for journalists to “produce news citizens need”. Saying that ethics in journalism is “obedience to the unenforceable”, he outlined some points:
• Democracy is a system defined by the people holding the power, but in many countries this has been whittled back to a situation in which the people only have the vote. Journalists have to contribute to the people having a role beyond just voting.
• Characterising political journalism as “reporting yelling diatribes”, he said journalism needed to provide clarity rather than adding to confusion and questioned whether a degree of “civility” wasn’t sorely needed in most public debates.
• He urged journalists to “get at consensus” on important issues and not just to do “bipolar coverage”.
• Journalists should help publics to see elections as “hiring decisions” rather than win-or-lose conflicts.

Prof James Joseph


Joseph asked the journalists if they wanted to do more than report, if they wanted to provide leadership. “Most of the great issues of the day are moral issues,” he said. Leadership required emotional intelligence – self awareness, empathy and social skills; moral intelligence – leaders are custodians of values and not just resources, he said; social intelligence – pluralism is an asset and diversity must be embraced; and spiritual intelligence – journalists should see journalism as something bigger than a job or assignment and respect the humanity of those who lives are examined and whose actions are exposed. Referring to what some commentators have called the “free-floating anxiety” of modern life, Joseph also suggested that journalists should provide hope, which he said “looks at the evidence and sees alternate possibilities”.

In response eNews Africa Editor Chris Maroleng told Joseph how complicated journalism is in South Africa because “those who have seized power regard themselves as having the authority to define journalists as illegitimate because they haven’t been voted into power”. Nic Dawes, editor of the Mail&Guardian, who continues to keep a very watchful eye on the progress of proposed legislation like the Protection of Information Bill (POIB), concurred with Maroleng and said he had been attacked by politicians often with the question “Who voted for the Mail&Guardian?” In his years of political reporting, Dawes said, he has seen Parliament “closing down” and more and more committees operating in secrecy. Dawes, after detailing his understanding of the POIB, said he had two concerns: that good governance relies on openness and transference of information and a law like this would close that down, but also that it would “overlay a layer of fear” across society.

Dawes believes that the core idea of Constitutional democracy is to “harmonise” conscience, civic duty and law, but the ANC’s attitude to the judicial system and to the amendments of many laws are showing that the Constitution is now being seen as an “obstacle”. What had to be made clear and held on to, he said, was the vision of democracy as consisting of a society of “overlapping institutions of accountability for citizen and sovereign to exchange ideas”, and this, he said, “fundamentally licences and legitimises journalism and civic work”. We should not have to trust government, he said, we should be able to “trust a complex architecture of institutions”, for our democracy to flourish. He also made a very strong appeal for those punting freedom of the press and freedom of expression to not divorce “classical rights from social-economic rights”. The Constitution strongly connects “the moral autonomy of humans with right of access to water and housing – these are inseparable”, he said, and to focus only on the former is a “false distinction”. His position is that the campaign against the draconian provisions of the POIB is a “campaign for social justice”.

eNews journalist Nikiwe Bikitsha


The rest of the day consisted of panels involving the Menell Fellows present, other journalists and an appearance by Allister Sparks, who’s working on his sixth book. In a panel focusing on mentoring new journalists eNews’ Nikiwe Bikitsha said the one piece of advice she would freely disseminate would be “learn all you can all the time”. She called for newsrooms to “boost research capacity” and extolled the virtues of “reading original documents” and not just relying on experts to interpret them. She also argued that media houses should abandon the attitude of hiring or promoting “one black at a time, one woman at a time” and “invest far more aggressively” in the future. Marion Edmunds who’s worked in multiple newsrooms, said that to work in South Africa journalists have to be comfortable with the idea that “truth is owned by more than one person and that it is not always the place of journalism to determine the dominant idea of the truth”. Gasant Abarder, Argus editor has started brown bag sessions in his paper to get conversations flowing about how they do their journalism. He’s finding that “talking more” helps to build institutional history. Sparks bemoaned the loss to journalism of 50-year-old reporters. The golden age of his career, he said, was when he stopped being an editor and became a reporter again.

Participants of the Menell Media Fellows colloquium


I found myself on the last panel of the day and was asked to address the challenges journalism faces and the changes it must make, so I summed up the day for myself like this:
• We need quality journalism – new, fresh, challenging. Tell me something I don’t already know, give me a corruption story that is not just like the one I read yesterday.
• We need ethical journalism – not the big stick-type of moralising, but a thoughtful journalism that thinks about purpose and point.
• We need public-minded journalism – how to use what we do to build the people James Joseph talked of, who can hold the democratic power and use it.
• We need civic-minded journalism – to see ourselves as part of society with a social role (as Nic Dawes said, knit that campaign of freedom of expression into one of social justice).
• We need solidarity of journalists – private media and public media, social media and community media – we need to talk about what affects us all and see ourselves as a whole entity.
• We need to be brave – speak up, speak out, do the right thing, regardless of the hostile environment that seeks to undermine journalism – and journalists – by the silencing tactic of calling it illegitimate.

And a final note: who is the “we” I’m thinking of here, particularly as unlike all the Menell fellows who are journalists every day, I’m an educator in an academic environment? Well this would be all of us who have a stake in South African journalism and its future.

Social Media and Global Citizens

Areta Sobieraj is interviewed by Vanessa Malila regarding her work for Oxfam Italy in promoting the notion of the global citizen in schools around the world. During her trip to a project in Grahamstown, South Africa, Areta visited the School of Journalism and Media Studies to discuss her project and the potential and challenges of using social media as a tool for promoting global citizenship.
This is a short clip of the interview and the transcript follows below.

Areta Sobieraj, education officer at Oxfam Italy, addresses the School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University, South Africa.

Vanessa: What is a global citizen?
Aletta: That is a very good question. I think the three of us sitting here would probably be able to give our own responses and if you continue to ask people then it will always be different so there isn’t a given response. But I think in terms of global citizenship education, I would say that a global citizen is someone who is very much aware of the world and very much aware of the fact that they are a citizen and the role that they have as a citizen. I think it’s somebody who respects and values diversity, I think it’s someone who is able to understand also how the world works, having knowledge about all sorts of aspects within society. A global citizen would be somebody who is not only aware of but becomes outraged at incidences of social injustice and so feels part of the solution, feels responsible, participates actively, so is willing to make the world a more equitable and sustainable place. We have a very simplified learning process which is ‘learn – think – act’. It’s very much that when you have the knowledge and are exposed to certain situations you then bring your own critical thinking and analysis – which are of course aspects which have to be fostered – but because there are so many socio-affective, so the emotions come in, the knowledge is there, the ability to read one’s own community, one’s own local as well as global community I think, then you feel that you should do something and that you can do something.

Vanessa: How do individuals who come from a place like South Africa adopt this ideal of becoming a global citizen?
Aletta: I think it’s something, it’s not only unusual or uncommon in South Africa, but I have to say. But I think that what is very important is that the feeling of not having the power to change things is very common to young people generally. Of course it would be even more so, I imagine it could be even more so in certain situations in South Africa where really their voices aren’t heard, perhaps they don’t feel – they’ve never had the possibility to have this kind of exposure. The change they can make and the change that everyone can make is local change.

Vanessa: Has the media been a hindrance or an enabler of this notion of the global citizen?
Aletta: on one side this idea that the world has opened up and so you have students on one side of the world and students on the other who are exposed to completely different lifestyles as well as being able to see cultures which perhaps they weren’t exposed to so easily before. So in one way this is part of being aware of the world. So yes, it’s important. What has happened in Italy for example, I’m going to speak from a personal level, the media has also limited especially when it comes to TV more than anything else, has limited just how much young people can learn I think, because of the types of programmes that are on TV, this all comes down to who is controlling the TV. But having said that you then have social media which contrasts and in fact more young people in Italy are spending their time on social media then they are watching the TV. And this comes back to the idea of being able to have direct contact with other people, so exchanging ideas, getting to know what is going on. And I think that social media such as social networks they are linking people together and I think this is also important that young people feel that they not alone. So, I would say there are definitely two sides to the answer.
I think from what I have seen, I am currently working on a project here in Grahamstown which uses social media to talk about in this case it’s a human rights project, so it’s the right to culture. So we have been carrying out different debates, discussions, activities on the right to culture and then using a social network and there are five classes here in South Africa – five classes in Italy, so whatever they have come up with they put on this social media website and they are able to see each other’s responses, ask each other, you know comment on what is happening, and if they have any questions they want to ask. So something like this is quite rare, it doesn’t happen very often, and I’m doing it in township schools here, so I see the kids that don’t have this kind of exposure regularly and of course it’s very frustrating, it’s frustrating because you can see just how much they would be able to thrive from these kinds of experiences, or being able at least to have the chance to be connected. I know there are good projects going on especially in the township schools and so this is kind of a ray of hope, so it would be something definitely which would, and probably will become slowly part of the way schools work because it’s a very immediate way of having this exposure.

7th Global Conference on Pluralism, Inclusion and Citizenship

By Anthea Garman

Democratic South Africa, with its highly inclusive constitution and embrace of all creeds and colours, could be understood as having an ideal form of citizenship to be emulated by other nations. But, what we see – 18 years into our new democracy – is a widening gap between citizenship on paper and citizenship in reality. This was the conundrum that Herman Wasserman and Anthea Garman took to the 7th Global Conference on Pluralism, Inclusion and Citizenship in Prague from 12 to 14 March.

Starting off the conference, the facilitator Ram Vemuri said to the gathering of researchers that we live in a world of “hyphenated individuals” and that he did not think the problems created by migration and pluralism could not be solved by “inclusion of citizenship”.

Most of the researchers at the conference came from the European states and much of their work focused on migrants into Europe who find themselves incapable of securing citizenship status and who are then very vulnerable to all sort of inhumane treatment (like working as tomato pickers for slave wages). In contrast our paper looked at how South Africans generally do have citizenship status but how political and economic structures make it very difficult to activate that status in daily life to affect political processes.

A particularly interesting European development discussed at the conference by Sabrina Tucci of Amnesty International, is the one in which the rich, northern states put excessive pressure on the southern nations to defend the borders of Europe against illegal immigrants. This results in strange deals with countries (like Libya in a deal with Italy) in which the northern African states become the police of Europe by preventing Africans crossing the Mediterranean in return for arms and ammunition. The border of Europe moves further and further south into another continent and people in need of asylum find themselves less and less able to acquire it.
But there is no doubt that if you are properly credentialed, to be a European within the free-movement zone has great benefits and this situation is the one West Africa is trying to emulate, according to Habibu Yaya whose presentation focused on Ecowas (the Economic Community of West African States). Ecowas, said Yaya, is trying to deal with violent conflict and social disintegration on the ground by creating a supranational state which makes this citizenship a larger, more desirable status to attain.

Types of citizenship were explored: Federico Oliveri looked at how migrant farm workers in Italy who are not citizens are demanding the right to be treated properly as workers despite the fact that they are transients in the country. By asserting that their economic contribution is valuable they are organising and presenting themselves in public, which Oliveri claimed, are “acts of citizenship”.

Synnove Bendixsen, who has been monitoring a campaign by Ethiopian irregular migrants in Oslo, says “acts of citizenship… disrupt … the positions which have been assigned to people by states”. These asylum seekers who are making themselves visible publicly by setting up tent camps in the city are rejecting their status as illegal and deliberately claiming “personhood which supercedes the nation-state discourse” of nationality.
In Israel, Hila Zaban , has investigated a Jewish community now living in what was a upper-class Palestinian neighbourhood of Jerusalem which was evacuated of its residents in 1948. If “democracy is an everyday praxis”, she said, then “small scale politics can jump to Politics” [with a capital P] and small acts in the locale can be meaningful on a bigger scale. Belonging and ownership are in constant tension in this neighbourhood, she said.

Saeed Khan, originally from Pakistan, is now based in Washington DC, and pays close attention to “Muslimophobia” in the US . He posits that because many white Americans are extremely anxious about a future in which they are outnumbered by Hispanics and African-Americans and because it is impossible for them to act on this fear politically with legitimacy, they have created a scapegoat of American muslims, who they can target because the discourse of “terrorism” allows them to do so. This takes the form of states who have outlawed sharia law when there is no possibility of a minority group having the power to enact sharia law.

Perhaps the most curious situation discussed was that of the Emirati state of Dubai. Because of the desire to modernise and rapidly urbanise this city in the Persian Gulf migrant construction workers from South East Asia now hugely outnumber the citizens who are just 11.5% of the population leading to an intense debate within this minority, said Mohammed Baharoon of “who is more of a citizen” . According to Kenneth Wise , citizenship is a matter of belonging to the families detailed in 1971 as having lived in this area for generations. To acquire naturalisation an individual has to be sponsored by a sheikh from one of these families. This unequal situation has provoked questions about whether individuals have rights, who can have full rights, and who has sovereign authority to decide, Wise said.

Francois Levrau used the work of philosopher Axel Honneth to argue that tolerance of others is a “thin concept” and that we need to use the “thick concept” of respect and recognition in societies struggling with integration. Levrau reminded us that the “story” of citizenship, of insiders and outsiders, of included and excluded is not usually told as the symbiotic relationship it is.

The conference was organised by inter-disciplinary.net

Is South Africa a home for all?

By Azwihangwisi Mufamadi

In commemoration of the human rights week, Rhodes University hosted a panel discussion to debate whether South Africa was a home for all.

Professor Barney Pityana, well-known human rights activist and Rector of the College of Transfiguration, chaired the discussions. He said that the South African constitution stresses the importance of social cohesion as one of the fundamental ideals. “The values that are set out in the constitution are tested by the way we relate to one another,” Barney Pityana.

Professor Francis Nyamnjoh, a social anthropologist at the University of Cape Town, pointed out that home and belonging are concepts that are constantly given meaning by the social process that human beings engage in. Belonging depends on one’s experience with a particular environment. “Legally I have a French passport but I don’t feel French at all” he said. “I don’t have South African residence or passport but I feel that I relate to people in ways that make me feel that this is home for me for the time being.”

Xenophobia was an underlying theme that ran throughout this panel discussion. Drawing on her research work with Congolese migrants in South Africa, Dr Joy Owen of the Rhodes University Anthropology Department said that the experience of migrants in South Africa is not always a positive one. “They are recipients of xenophobic attitudes and violence in the hands of the state and its citizens,” she said.
Owen also pointed out that relationships across nationalities are often forged but they are not easy to maintain because they “are constructed within a general environment that is hostile and alienating”.
Despite all these challenges relationships do exist between international men and South African women. “There are stories of friendship and love across divides. On a micro level South Africans are forging relationships with continental Africans every day,” she said.

Bishop Paul Verryn of the Central Methodist Church in Johannesburg said that South Africans need to remember that the reason they are a non-discriminatory nation is so that the injustices of Apartheid never happen again. Verryn, whose church provides refuge for many Zimbabwean migrants, encouraged people to be more tolerant to other nationalities.
“Opening of our homes and our borders to Zimbabweans does not come without its difficulties,” he said. “Integration does not happen to human beings by the process of osmosis”.

Professor Pedro Tabensky, a Rhodes University philosopher, pointed out that the only solution is to bridge the inequality gap that divides South Africa and to embrace humanity. “What is required is to see humanity in the other; the foreigner, the neighbour, the worker and the entrepreneur,” he said.

Dr Sizwe Mabizela, Rhodes University’s Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs, said that South Africa will only be a home for all when we begin to see ourselves as part of humanity rather than in isolation.

You have the right to feel at home

By Tish Haridass

Home – the word feels strange in my mouth. People have a lot of opinions about what it means, about where it is and about how it is defined. I don’t think I have any and people have a lot of opinions about that too.

I don’t think home is an actual thing. I think through centuries of development, we came up with the idea of home. People have a long standing history of attaching meaning to things to comfort themselves. Meanings about life so that death isn’t scary. Meanings about family so that life isn’t scary. And meanings about home, so that families aren’t scary. We’re scared. We need to know that we belong somewhere, to someone. We need to be comforted.
Home is about comfort.

Section 26 of the South African Constitution gives you the right to access adequate housing. And though I don’t have a specific place I call home or particularly want one (and oh boy, do people have opinions about that!) I think people should have the right to feel at home. You should have the right to not be scared.

There are thousands of people who wake up in a house that they can’t call home because they’re scared. They’re scared because they’re gay, or because they weren’t born in the country they live in, or because they have Aids. And they have the right to be protected from persecution but they should have the right to not be scared. And that isn’t a right they can put in the Constitution. That’s a right that we should afford people out of compassion, out of common humanity.

Every person, I believe, gets to a point where the house they grew up in isn’t their home any more. It doesn’t fit any more. You’ve grown too much, changed too much and want too much more. And at that point, you have a choice to make – either to hold on to your home or move forward.

There are people in South Africa who didn’t fit into their homes any more and they chose to move forward. They chose South Africa as the place for their new home. We afford them rights to housing but not to a home. And by doing that, we may as well take away the house too.

Every day I hear people talk about being homesick and about missing the comforts of home. There are such grand ideas pulled into such a tiny word. Sometimes I feel homesick, not for a place, just for the comfort. I can’t imagine a life in which that comfort is just a far off fantasy.

People have a lot of opinions about the idea of home. I have just one.

You have the right to feel at home, anything you say at home cannot and will not be held against you, you have the right to create a family in your home – your own family, however you choose to do it – and you have the right to not have to feel scared in your home.

You have the right.

(Tish is a third year Writing & Editing student at the School of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University)

Login Form

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in D:\iis\mediaandcitizenship\wp-content\plugins\gantry\core\gantrygzipper.class.php on line 153