Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, as we all know, yesterday, 31 May 2010, marked the centenary of the Union of South Africa.
We are gathered in this National Assembly as public representatives in the democratic state of South Africa. We are not assembled here to apportion blame or to exclude others from sharing in nation-building and social cohesion programmes. In our approach to commemorating history, we should neither be eclectic nor silent.
As has been said by speakers before me in this House, the formation of the Union was a significant milestone in the establishment of the nation-state we now know as the Republic of South Africa. This marked the culmination of engagements of the victorious British economic interests on the one hand, and the defeated Boer republics on the other, in a manner which excluded the African people, who had also participated in this South African War.
It is worth noting that this war was referred to by the Afrikaner historians as ...
... die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog ... [... the Second Boer War ... ]
... eVryheid baba ngapha eNatali ...[... in Vryheid sir, in Natal ...]
... and by the British or English historians as the Anglo-Boer War, implying that only Afrikaners and British participated in the war. And yet, we know today that the Sesotho language is richer because of the observations the Basothos made during this war, when they described a fierce war or a fierce contestation. In Sesothso they say...
Ke ntwa ya dibono ena ntate; ho hobe. [Man, this is a war that is very tough; things are bad.]
This is an idiom informed by the fact that a contingent of Scotsmen, a Scottish regiment, also participated in that war. When the Basothos came across the bodies of the dead Scotsmen lying there with their kilts not quite covering the lower part of their bodies, they coined this idiom, which they use up to today to describe fierce contestations. [Laughter.]
The founding of the Union is one singular event that determined the contours of modern-day South Africa since the South Africa Act of 1909.
Hon members, engagement with the Union of South Africa as a chapter of our history will not only help us understand where we are today as a nation, but also, based on this historical understanding, help us find correct ways out of our present conditions.
We are a people who have always been ready to engage and discuss what is of concern to us as a nation. Throughout the history and experience of dispossession, African people opposed exclusion and never accepted being left out of processes that affected their lives. Therefore they always posited principles of inclusivity as opposed to exclusion.
It is thanks to visionary leaders such as Dr Abdulla Abdurahman, Mohandas Gandhi, Prof John Tengo Jabavu, Sol Plaatje and Dr John Langalibalele Dube, and many others, that our people were kept abreast of all the developments leading up to the formation of the Union. These brave men and women could unpack and translate every part of the debates to their chiefs, elders and ordinary fellow Africans.
Hon members, as an answer and a direct response to this act of exclusion, these leaders came together in Bloemfontien on 8 January 1912 to form the South African Native National Congress as a parliament of the people.
Because they were excluded from the main body politic of this country, they formed their own parliament. Most importantly, the seeds for nonracialism in South Africa can be traced back to this era of activism in which leaders opposed the rendering of Africans as temporary sojourners in the land of their birth.
As public representatives, we are obliged to take the lead on behalf of our people by relaying our history as our forebears did in the past. Let us engage with history in its entirety and shun the silence to inaction. I believe we are ready to take on the meanings and implications emanating from the centenary of the Union of South Africa.
Since the dawn of our constitutional democracy, we have always demonstrated a collective maturity to deal with inconvenient truths, as uncomfortable as they may be. The task before us, irrespective of where in the political spectrum we reside, is one requiring us to engage with this history comprehensively and objectively. We have to deal with this history in its entirety and embrace it for what it is, failing which, history will become subjective and reflective of the interests and viewpoints of the victors. As one old African idiom states: Only once lions have historians, will hunters cease to be heroes.
Therefore, our task, as a nation united in its diversity, should not be restricted by a willing embrace of only what is positive in our eyes, because those negative elements in our historical record are there to alert us to the directions from which we should steer clear.
Ordinarily, this centenary celebration should be a subject for national discourse, discussed in every town and village, dorpie and township. But, as matters have turned out, it is not. Instead, we find ourselves in a headlong rush to move forward without understanding where we come from.
Let me not delve into the details of events that occurred leading up to the formation of the Union 100 years ago, as this has been covered by other hon members.
For practical purposes, this epochal moment signalled the beginning of the long period of exclusion of the majority of our people from meaningful participation in the main body politic of our country. This exclusion also meant that race continued to be a significant index in both the polity and economy of our country.
The consequences of the establishment of the Union of South Africa are reverberating in all aspects of society today, 16 years into our democracy. And so, if we are to address the challenges besetting us in present day South Africa - challenges of poverty and inequality, social cohesion, and residues of racism and sexism - we can only do so guided by a clearer comprehension of this collective past from which none of us can escape.
Of course, reflection on odious acts in our past does not call for a common interpretation of history. Instead, it encourages all of us to be candid and open about our shared past with a view not only to prevent repetition of such mistakes, but also, more importantly, with a view to use such mistakes to rebuild our nation.
This is our history and a ledger of memory upon which our present socioeconomic conditions are based. Admittedly, our past is a past of pain for many of our people. The majority of South Africans have suffered much from policies of dispossession and from practices of exploitation. Yes, we are saddled with monuments reminding us of this pain and suffering. Yes, there is a temptation for us to consider wiping the slate of our history clean.
Every event in our lore, dating from the arrival of the Dutch East Indian Company in 1652, should, of necessity, be objectively catalogued and narrated for posterity. If we decide to make feel-good history our focus, we are most likely to repeat the errors of our past. Should we be remiss in this task, I believe we would be betraying the memory of those who lived and died in the course of this history.
Hon members, in embracing the past, especially its negative and unappealing aspects, such as those resulting from land dispossession, we do not by any stretch of the imagination intend to rub it in among certain sections of our population.
What we need is an all-inclusive process that involves the participation of all communities and social groups in determining our collective history and shared destiny. This is what would happen if we remain silent about our history and select to focus instead on episodes favourable to our purposes. Only this time, those condemning history to the bin of forgetfulness will not be agents of oppression, but all of us, through our silence and selective amnesia.
As it is commonly said, there is no silence without a language to make it so. Instead, it is our duty to betray silence, since there is no sorrow as deep as a sorrow of the unknown and what is denied.
I am convinced silence would not be the correct approach. We need to have a dialogue with the events from whence we come. We have to negotiate our presence by preservation of the unimaginable acts that took place during South Africa's period of slavery, colonialism and apartheid. There cannot be any lasting comfort in razing material testaments which, I would suggest, need to be imaginatively recaptured by our artists, architects and historians, so that the tales continue to live on, not only in the oral narrative but in the material representations such as museums and place names. After all, in the dialogue of slavery, colonialism and apartheid are stories of survival and of ultimate triumph against inhumane systems.
The project of nation-building and social cohesion that we began 16 years ago demands nothing less than inviting every group and community in deciding on how we approach and relate to our shared history and common destiny.
I am of the view that if everyone is made to feel welcome in communicating the narrative of South Africa, we would then be a step closer to convincing them to feel patriotic as South Africans.
Hon members, our history when viewed in its entirety offers us salutary benefits on how to deal with issues of racial politics, building programmes of unity and forging ahead to build a society all its inhabitants can be proud of.
In conclusion, let us remember the fact that silence is as much an omission as it is a commission. The late national laureate, Mazisi Kunene, with these words, offers us a reason to preserve our history:
We must congregate here around the sitting mat, to narrate endlessly the stories of distant worlds. It is enough to do so, to give our tale the grandeur of an ancient heritage and then to clap our hands for those who are younger.
I thank you for your attention. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.