Siki Dlanga
Cape Town - Minister Lindiwe Sisulu became the first South African minister to be invited to address the House of Lords.
This address took place last week at the invitation of the Parliamentary Committee on South Africa in Britain. The Lords acknowledged the historic nature of the moment.
The meeting took place at the end of June, a month now also stained by the tragic death of teenagers in a tavern at Scenery Park, an event that exposes how the nation is yet to learn how to protect her young.
June is, however, still a month that reminds us of youth agency, where young people grabbed hold of their tomorrows. Young bodies were broken as they broke apartheid barriers because they were simply too young not to dream of a different future for themselves.
Among the Lords and Ladies gathered for Minister Sisulu’s address was Lord Peter Hain, a British politician and anti-apartheid activist from his youth, like Lindiwe Sisulu.
Sisulu was imprisoned by the apartheid regime for her anti-apartheid activism in 1976. On the other hand, Hain, a young white man in the UK, was an anti-apartheid activist famous for leading the successful boycott of an all-white Springbok team as well as an all-white SA cricket team on their respective tours to England.
Now, these two former anti-apartheid activists, decades older than when they began - hold political positions in their respective countries.
Hain clearly has not lost his dreams for a better South Africa, even at his age - neither has Sisulu.
Their story goes deeper than that. Both their parents, Hain and Sisulu, once marched together against the apartheid regime.
Between them was a laudable witness of generations worth of fighting injustice against racist oppression.
They represent unspoken victories and incomplete struggles - a struggle Sisulu still carries. She had brought it to the House of Lords. After all, colonial Britain brought the law which must be recognised as common law above African traditional law, which she had now brought to their attention.
Lord Jony Oats, Lord Tessa Blackstone, Lord Chris Loder, and Lord Peter Hain each demanded her views on the South African Judiciary because of the various articles that had criticised her.
They had the decency, however, to press for answers, unlike the South African media and opinion writers, who are only interested in discrediting the merits of the discussion without authentic debate. Or like the white feminists who drag her name in the mud for having dared to call the nation to be more reflective about how the judiciary is slanted away from the marginalised it aught to protect.
In her response, she explicitly explained that our constitution, from its conception, was a result of a negotiated settlement and not the ideal. It is not the Freedom Charter, nor is it ideal. While journalists from popular papers criticise her, she is invited by Law Schools such as Unisa, who are interested in decolonising law, so that it does not continue to feed this intolerable inequality.
In this British parliamentary committee, Minister Sisulu dared to bring Zimbabwe into the memory of the British because our constitution, as it stands, frustrates all attempts to rectify the land injustice in South Africa. She communicated clearly to the House of Lords that if we do nothing about redressing land, South Africa will sink into far more dangerous territory.
She made an example about how it took 10 years to fight for a single piece of land where they eventually built Cosmo City simply because someone owned it.
They wanted to build a community that was desegregated unlike apartheid.
Lord Hain must have understood that were they not fighting to end apartheid? Battling in court for 10 years for land to build cannot be our norm.
This parliamentary committee had advocated for the unbanning of South Africa during the irrational South Africa ban because of Omicron. They further applied pressure on Ryanair against the Afrikaans test, which was imposed on travellers who were South African passport holders.
Sisulu was initially in the UK to perform her duties as SA Minister of Tourism on a drive to the UK at the invitation of the UK government.
SA tourism had recently hosted a successful Tourism Africa Indaba in Durban. Africa’s leading YouTubers from various countries such as Ghana and Nigeria had an opportunity to show their African and global audiences why South Africa is the country to visit.
It was a resounding success, drawing much-needed positivity to counter negative sentiments about South Africa among potential African tourists.
It was a triumphant feel-good story, as good as travel should make you feel. You can still follow the comments from viewers who cannot wait to visit South Africa since the Indaba.
The Tourism drive in the UK, unfortunately, did not deliver the same results.
The UK failed to provide visas for South African Exhibitors, which frustrated our country’s efforts to connect with UK audiences.
The Minister of Tourism and her team were the only ones who were granted visas. The SA Tourism Department had already shipped their exhibits, only to have to ship them back unused. This left a similar sour taste to that of the unjustified omicron ban as well as the Ryanair Afrikaans test.
The House of Lords parliament on South Africa in Britain served as a light at the end of the tunnel for Sisulu’s team.
This meeting further highlighted the resistance of white South Africans against the ideas presented by Sisulu regarding the constitution. The resistance is the disinterest in a more equal society because like the Helen Suzman Foundation, inequality enriches those who already have more while it sacrifices the poor.
Sisulu further stressed her frustration at black judges who make judgements that are anti-poor. The system also benefits a few black elites who are resistant to change. Lord Peter Hain and Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, however, provide a glimpse of hope for what a Rainbow Nation that works could look like. There is no Rainbow without ending the unjust inequality. There is no Rainbow Nation that exists when the land remains colonised or allotted according to apartheid spatial planning.
There is no Rainbow Nation that pretends that the constitution is not a negotiated settlement that needs to be renegotiated to suit all South Africans. Colonialism was about land and resources. It is becoming clear that with the level of resistance to Sisulu’s letter, it will take deliberate and extreme measures to end inequality and segregation.
Dlanga is a political analyst and writes in her own capacity.
Cape Times