Rainbowism: A localised importation of neoliberalism in South Africa; A set of social norms espoused during South Africa’s political ‘honeymoon’ era Above our nation it hangs in perpetuity, the storm cloud that is Apartheid’s legacy. With some using it as justification for reductionism and most simply too afraid to acknowledge its existence-and so go about convincing themselves the darkness is a social manifestation in entirety- both groups uninterested in actually dealing with it. But we are not sunshine-optimists afraid of confronting the dark, nor are we politicians who see it as a convenient darkness to steal in. We are prepared to confront it, see it and attack it with the same veracity it rains the past back onto us. Non-fiction books generally begin with a preface or introduction, this is the accepted norm given the definition of a prologue reserves it to fiction and stories. Really it’s a small thing. This is why we have begun with a prologue, hitting at a slight anarchistic tendency-a comment on where as a nation we are, the need to confront the ‘small things’ that with multitude hinder our society and the fact that this is an attempt not to reduce South Africa to cold facts but to do justice to it as a living story. South Africa is but a young adult, and in the same manner is still attempting to find itself while simultaneously convincing itself that it has achieved self-awareness-entrenched modernity-and from an abusive home remains understandably afraid to peel back the bandage of its now festering wounds-the national unconscious of Rainbowism. This book shall propose the need to question the validity of freedom in our land and the systems that it stems from and reject the notion of blind triumphism -for which the time has passed. This through analysis of the inherent nature of the systems that brought our society to this point. Ultimately the idea of a “rainbow nation” is over, this shall be established and its demise tracked back to itself. So this leaves us with the question: Where has the end of our rainbow delivered us? Introduction to definitions Before we delve into the individual facets of what affects our society we must define a few key things that in this book may differ slightly to the general definition. Firstly is the concept that is heavily referred to in this book and has been the long night of many: Race. Race is a mass social conscious entrenched by socio-economic circumstances, to avoid reductionism this is not the sole definition of race but rather conglomeration of the various definitions we have as people come up with. Yes it sounds verbose so to break it down: -It is a “conscious” because it holds no biological meaning, is does black mean melanin production? How much is enough to be black? Is brown enough, since many black Africans in South Africa are in fact brown in skin tone? Or is only the closest skin tone to primary colour black “black”? -It is socio-economic because this is what creates the substance of race and it is social because we tend to define along these lines. Next comes a ism that is the basis of this book. The definitions of this varies, in this book we describe rainbowism twofold: As a school of thought imported via libertarianism, which thus focuses on individualism, but is distinct in the sense that rather paradoxically maintains group privilege (by effectively ignoring it) and as a political and economic set of policy norms instituted to mitigate sabotage of South Africa’s still forming democracy during the transition in the mid-90’s. Now at the risk of cliche, without further ado: Part I Storms and Rainbows San and Greeks Two societies that generally people could not place further apart: The latter a renowned civilisation that contributed greatly to the advancement of humanity, the other relegated to simple one dimensional uncivilised peoples insignificant to the progress of humanity. What is their similarity? The first is that at some point in history by some peoples or the other both have been viewed as enlightened people which in our current Eurocentric model on determination of historical prestige may come as a surprise and most importantly both can be identified as proto-democratic societies. This is not a history book solely and though interesting the first point (adds no real value-save for proof of the need to learn our history to advance proper localised ideology -to the forthcoming argument. Many of us make the assumption that democracy is not merely a fundamentally Western idea but a Western invention in entirety. Thus modern Western thought acts as a moral guide to South Africa, a democracy. This in itself is not a problem, but for the fact that it is an ideological monopoly premised upon accepted falsehood. To start, what and who can be categorised as proto-democratic. The definitions of this vary and lacking any set criterion this book shall take the following as proto-democratic -Collective consensus of the broad population constitutes primary policy, this is a polemic point. Given that for example in the predecessor of Western democracy, Athenian democracy, aspects of society where excluded. Thus not all the population but the population broadly represented which brings us to our second criteria -The collective consensus of the chosen broad population can overrule the leader OR a leader is elected by the broad population. Naturally the exclusion of aspects of society appears most undemocratic which is why these societies are proto-democratic considering their comparative democratic practice in the world at that time. The San are undoubtedly the oldest people in the world, At least they have the longest running distinctive history, stretching back some 26 0001 years. Despite this some tend to relegate and simplify their entire society and system of living to primitive hunter-gatherers. Yes, this is the manner the San people received sustenance but reducing their entire society to this? This is akin to reducing the entire modern world to “exploit-profiters”. The truth is San society was highly sophisticated and perfected over thousands of years, unfortunately due to their gradual (predominantly peaceful) displacement and assimilation into abantu communities and more importantly their devastating genocide at the hands of colonial powers in the 1800’s much of it has been lost. From what we can gather however it had the following governance structure: -No defined executive existed however, • Minor and administrative decisions where made by a early parliamentary body constituted of either • All the population that volunteered or elected men (unknown if women in this case where permitted) • Major economic (trade) and political (relations, internal) where made by community consensus The San as the oldest people in the world, perfecting systems over thousands of years give us a glimpse into what can be considered the base of human systems of organisation. We thus see that democracy is a base that is not exclusive to the Ancient Greeks. So how did the Ancient Greeks develop their democracy? Despite democracy indeed being a natural human system only a few around the world developed it. This can be attributed to mainly geography and distribution of resources. We shall not discuss these reasons, instead we shall now move to our local history of democracy Bulls of Slavery The past chapter has proven democracy is not a Western invention, why then do Western norms and modern Western thought still guide South African norms and modern South African thought? Why do we still subscribe to a Western-stylised democracy? Mainly why is (did) libertarianism inform our transition to democracy (i.e rainbowism, based upon almost pure individualism) We can answer these questions with the following: While forms of democracy where existent in South Africa and legal systems prepared to adopt this our legal system was institutionalised (not introduced, legal systems where already in existence prior) by European settlers and our democracy grafted upon this. Institutionalisation means in this case the formalisation of a social-norm, in other words “written-down”2 in contract or implemented as policy rather than assumed practice. Institutional law is thus a codified set of accepted practice not just accepted practice. The first practice of law3 in South Africa in this sense can be traced to the the colonial era of South Africa which actually extends beyond the infamous 1652. A little examined facet of our history is the Portuguese incursions in the Cape. While well known in 1471 the Portuguese under Bartolomeu Dias landed in the Cape what is not is their tenuous relationships with the Khoi Khoi who had been residing in the Cape for 2000 thousand years by then. Portuguese ships first landed on South African soil not intentionally but after being wrecked by the massive storms around the coast after attempting to find a route to India. So much so the coastline was initially named the Cape of Storms This was characterised by Portuguese ships and their commanders from Vasco da Gama to Antonio De Saldanha (1497 and 1500 respectively) landing ashore military units4 to “negotiate and barter” and eventually attacking in some form or another after negotiations went naturally wrong-which people would not be intimidated by heavily armed landing parties arriving on their home shore. All until February 28, 1510. Accounts of that day vary, but the common thread is the first implementation of institutionalised law: The judicially diminished status of an entire group of people The Portuguese after a skirmish with the khoi, after a group of Khoi fought with a Portuguese man allegedly attempting to deceive them seven days prior, sailed to Gorinhaiqua kraal. At the kraal after destroying it the Portuguese proceeded to abduct women and children. In all likelihood to sell into slavery This would be in line with prior practice on the West coast of Africa during the mid-1400s and most certainly with the future of commercial slave trade elsewhere in Africa. [cite Fortunes of Africa] The practice of slavery was justified by the interpretation biblical law that allowed for ill-treatment of non-Christians [cite King Henry] and a set of codes in Roman law that acted as the base for what scholars term “slave code” or the legality of slavery at the time, practiced with judicial backing across Europe. Early judiciary status of non-Abrahamic faith (Abrahamic faith peoples being Christians, Muslims and Jews) was not defined until the late 1400s. Until then Iberian legal traditions under Christian rule had clearly set precedent and defined those enslavable and not. Given that colonial exploration of Africa forced encounters of peoples outside the definitions of the “law” in 1455 Pope Nicholas IV issued a series of papal-bulls (important documents that set legal norms or the law itself) to rectify this: “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.” (The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455, Non-Christians sub-Saharan Africans as they where the law not merely permitted but almost created an obligation to enslave Khoi-Khoi-not in particular but given their identity. Thus the first experience South Africa had of “law” was one we in the modern era do not associate with due, fair and equitable legality. However the Portuguese failed to establish a colony in the Cape, on the same day they raided the kraal they suffered a humiliating military defeat from a numerically inferior group of Khoi herders. Which prevented them from setting up a formal colony. We can now move on to 1652 colonialism, the time of the Dutch and Jan Van Riebeeck who too landed at the Cape but far brought it “Good Hope” Cape of “Good Hope We could spend chapters examining the year 1652, the year some say civilisations landed on South Africa’s shores, the year some say was the start of civilisations eventually crashing, the year some would argue defined South Africa’s problems for centuries to come. For all its glamour and fame this is not the most important year even of that decade in South Africa, yes it was the day Jan Van Riebeck landed with intent to start a colony under orders of the VOC but this did not make it distict. Other Europeans had landed long before than more dramatically and with equal intent. No, the years we examine are 1654 and 1659-1660, to understand these years naturally context is required. During the early 1600’s a group of Dutch merchants collated their common interests and formed the Dutch East India Company, or the VOC as it shall be referred to in this book. It was mainly a reactionary move from market antagonisms from the Portuguese [http://www1.umassd.edu/euro/resources/dutchrep/3.pdf]. Given this it was supported by the Dutch government and given massive jurisdiction. [rupertgerritsen.tripod.com/pdf/published/VOC_Charter_1602.pdf] • Right to run its own judicial (system imprison, execute ect) • Wage war • Mint its own currency - Teh Ability to colonise as a state would • Legal rights to enslave • An independent military and naturally • Total self-regulation With these freedoms the VOC not only grew richer than its parent state but more powerful. It recognised that overland routes to the “East” where no longer profitable and after brutal colonialism of [VOC colonies] and basing its headquarters [] that allowed it to corner supply. It knew that a slowly Portuguese dominated sea route was best to the “East” and the Cape as a critical point in that route became the focus of the immense multinational. Thus after formal recommendation to the company to set up a refreshment station in the Cape (but not colonise the Cape yet) in 1652 the company sent its employees led by Jan Van Riebeeck to the Cape of Good Hope on the beaches of Table Bay. [Quick history on early settlement] The first encounters with the Khoi are famously depicted as largely peaceful and cohesive, and while no one can truly know what happened (when the proverb that until the lion writes its own history it will always be written from the eyes of the hunter rings true) given past encounters with Europeans it is likely true to have been peaceful but tense. The Dutch company continued to develop the refreshment station among the fynbos of the table bay in an environment described as Rainbowism: A localised importation of neoliberalism in South Africa; A set of social norms espoused during South Africa’s political ‘honeymoon’ era Above our nation it hangs in perpetuity, the storm cloud that is Apartheid’s legacy. With some using it as justification for reductionism and most simply too afraid to acknowledge its existence-and so go about convincing themselves the darkness is a social manifestation in entirety- both groups uninterested in actually dealing with it. But we are not sunshine-optimists afraid of confronting the dark, nor are we politicians who see it as a convenient darkness to steal in. We are prepared to confront it, see it and attack it with the same veracity it rains the past back onto us. Non-fiction books generally begin with a preface or introduction, this is the accepted norm given the definition of a prologue reserves it to fiction and stories. Really it’s a small thing. This is why we have begun with a prologue, hitting at a slight anarchistic tendency-a comment on where as a nation we are, the need to confront the ‘small things’ that with multitude hinder our society and the fact that this is an attempt not to reduce South Africa to cold facts but to do justice to it as a living story. South Africa is but a young adult, and in the same manner is still attempting to find itself while simultaneously convincing itself that it has achieved self-awareness-entrenched modernity-and from an abusive home remains understandably afraid to peel back the bandage of its now festering wounds-the national unconscious of Rainbowism. This book shall propose the need to question the validity of freedom in our land and the systems that it stems from and reject the notion of blind triumphism -for which the time has passed. This through analysis of the inherent nature of the systems that brought our society to this point. Ultimately the idea of a “rainbow nation” is over, this shall be established and its demise tracked back to itself. So this leaves us with the question: Where has the end of our rainbow delivered us? Introduction to definitions Before we delve into the individual facets of what affects our society we must define a few key things that in this book may differ slightly to the general definition. Firstly is the concept that is heavily referred to in this book and has been the long night of many: Race. Race is a mass social conscious entrenched by socio-economic circumstances, to avoid reductionism this is not the sole definition of race but rather conglomeration of the various definitions we have as people come up with. Yes it sounds verbose so to break it down: -It is a “conscious” because it holds no biological meaning, is does black mean melanin production? How much is enough to be black? Is brown enough, since many black Africans in South Africa are in fact brown in skin tone? Or is only the closest skin tone to primary colour black “black”? -It is socio-economic because this is what creates the substance of race and it is social because we tend to define along these lines. Next comes a ism that is the basis of this book. The definitions of this varies, in this book we describe rainbowism twofold: As a school of thought imported via libertarianism, which thus focuses on individualism, but is distinct in the sense that rather paradoxically maintains group privilege (by effectively ignoring it) and as a political and economic set of policy norms instituted to mitigate sabotage of South Africa’s still forming democracy during the transition in the mid-90’s. Now at the risk of cliche, without further ado: Part I Storms and Rainbows San and Greeks Two societies that generally people could not place further apart: The latter a renowned civilisation that contributed greatly to the advancement of humanity, the other relegated to simple one dimensional uncivilised peoples insignificant to the progress of humanity. What is their similarity? The first is that at some point in history by some peoples or the other both have been viewed as enlightened people which in our current Eurocentric model on determination of historical prestige may come as a surprise and most importantly both can be identified as proto-democratic societies. This is not a history book solely and though interesting the first point (adds no real value-save for proof of the need to learn our history to advance proper localised ideology -to the forthcoming argument. Many of us make the assumption that democracy is not merely a fundamentally Western idea but a Western invention in entirety. Thus modern Western thought acts as a moral guide to South Africa, a democracy. This in itself is not a problem, but for the fact that it is an ideological monopoly premised upon accepted falsehood. To start, what and who can be categorised as proto-democratic. The definitions of this vary and lacking any set criterion this book shall take the following as proto-democratic -Collective consensus of the broad population constitutes primary policy, this is a polemic point. Given that for example in the predecessor of Western democracy, Athenian democracy, aspects of society where excluded. Thus not all the population but the population broadly represented which brings us to our second criteria -The collective consensus of the chosen broad population can overrule the leader OR a leader is elected by the broad population. Naturally the exclusion of aspects of society appears most undemocratic which is why these societies are proto-democratic considering their comparative democratic practice in the world at that time. The San are undoubtedly the oldest people in the world, At least they have the longest running distinctive history, stretching back some 26 0001 years. Despite this some tend to relegate and simplify their entire society and system of living to primitive hunter-gatherers. Yes, this is the manner the San people received sustenance but reducing their entire society to this? This is akin to reducing the entire modern world to “exploit-profiters”. The truth is San society was highly sophisticated and perfected over thousands of years, unfortunately due to their gradual (predominantly peaceful) displacement and assimilation into abantu communities and more importantly their devastating genocide at the hands of colonial powers in the 1800’s much of it has been lost. From what we can gather however it had the following governance structure: -No defined executive existed however, • Minor and administrative decisions where made by a early parliamentary body constituted of either • All the population that volunteered or elected men (unknown if women in this case where permitted) • Major economic (trade) and political (relations, internal) where made by community consensus The San as the oldest people in the world, perfecting systems over thousands of years give us a glimpse into what can be considered the base of human systems of organisation. We thus see that democracy is a base that is not exclusive to the Ancient Greeks. So how did the Ancient Greeks develop their democracy? Despite democracy indeed being a natural human system only a few around the world developed it. This can be attributed to mainly geography and distribution of resources. We shall not discuss these reasons, instead we shall now move to our local history of democracy Bulls of Slavery The past chapter has proven democracy is not a Western invention, why then do Western norms and modern Western thought still guide South African norms and modern South African thought? Why do we still subscribe to a Western-stylised democracy? Mainly why is (did) libertarianism inform our transition to democracy (i.e rainbowism, based upon almost pure individualism) We can answer these questions with the following: While forms of democracy where existent in South Africa and legal systems prepared to adopt this our legal system was institutionalised (not introduced, legal systems where already in existence prior) by European settlers and our democracy grafted upon this. Institutionalisation means in this case the formalisation of a social-norm, in other words “written-down”2 in contract or implemented as policy rather than assumed practice. Institutional law is thus a codified set of accepted practice not just accepted practice. The first practice of law3 in South Africa in this sense can be traced to the the colonial era of South Africa which actually extends beyond the infamous 1652. A little examined facet of our history is the Portuguese incursions in the Cape. While well known in 1471 the Portuguese under Bartolomeu Dias landed in the Cape what is not is their tenuous relationships with the Khoi Khoi who had been residing in the Cape for 2000 thousand years by then. Portuguese ships first landed on South African soil not intentionally but after being wrecked by the massive storms around the coast after attempting to find a route to India. So much so the coastline was initially named the Cape of Storms This was characterised by Portuguese ships and their commanders from Vasco da Gama to Antonio De Saldanha (1497 and 1500 respectively) landing ashore military units4 to “negotiate and barter” and eventually attacking in some form or another after negotiations went naturally wrong-which people would not be intimidated by heavily armed landing parties arriving on their home shore. All until February 28, 1510. Accounts of that day vary, but the common thread is the first implementation of institutionalised law: The judicially diminished status of an entire group of people The Portuguese after a skirmish with the khoi, after a group of Khoi fought with a Portuguese man allegedly attempting to deceive them seven days prior, sailed to Gorinhaiqua kraal. At the kraal after destroying it the Portuguese proceeded to abduct women and children. In all likelihood to sell into slavery This would be in line with prior practice on the West coast of Africa during the mid-1400s and most certainly with the future of commercial slave trade elsewhere in Africa. [cite Fortunes of Africa] The practice of slavery was justified by the interpretation biblical law that allowed for ill-treatment of non-Christians [cite King Henry] and a set of codes in Roman law that acted as the base for what scholars term “slave code” or the legality of slavery at the time, practiced with judicial backing across Europe. Early judiciary status of non-Abrahamic faith (Abrahamic faith peoples being Christians, Muslims and Jews) was not defined until the late 1400s. Until then Iberian legal traditions under Christian rule had clearly set precedent and defined those enslavable and not. Given that colonial exploration of Africa forced encounters of peoples outside the definitions of the “law” in 1455 Pope Nicholas IV issued a series of papal-bulls (important documents that set legal norms or the law itself) to rectify this: “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso—to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.” (The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455, Non-Christians sub-Saharan Africans as they where the law not merely permitted but almost created an obligation to enslave Khoi-Khoi-not in particular but given their identity. Thus the first experience South Africa had of “law” was one we in the modern era do not associate with due, fair and equitable legality. However the Portuguese failed to establish a colony in the Cape, on the same day they raided the kraal they suffered a humiliating military defeat from a numerically inferior group of Khoi herders. Which prevented them from setting up a formal colony. We can now move on to 1652 colonialism, the time of the Dutch and Jan Van Riebeeck who too landed at the Cape but far brought it “Good Hope” Cape of “Good Hope We could spend chapters examining the year 1652, the year some say civilisations landed on South Africa’s shores, the year some say was the start of civilisations eventually crashing, the year some would argue defined South Africa’s problems for centuries to come. For all its glamour and fame this is not the most important year even of that decade in South Africa, yes it was the day Jan Van Riebeck landed with intent to start a colony under orders of the VOC but this did not make it distict. Other Europeans had landed long before than more dramatically and with equal intent. No, the years we examine are 1654 and 1659-1660, to understand these years naturally context is required. During the early 1600’s a group of Dutch merchants collated their common interests and formed the Dutch East India Company, or the VOC as it shall be referred to in this book. It was mainly a reactionary move from market antagonisms from the Portuguese [http://www1.umassd.edu/euro/resources/dutchrep/3.pdf]. Given this it was supported by the Dutch government and given massive jurisdiction. [rupertgerritsen.tripod.com/pdf/published/VOC_Charter_1602.pdf] • Right to run its own judicial (system imprison, execute ect) • Wage war • Mint its own currency - Teh Ability to colonise as a state would • Legal rights to enslave • An independent military and naturally • Total self-regulation With these freedoms the VOC not only grew richer than its parent state but more powerful. It recognised that overland routes to the “East” where no longer profitable and after brutal colonialism of [VOC colonies] and basing its headquarters [] that allowed it to corner supply. It knew that a slowly Portuguese dominated sea route was best to the “East” and the Cape as a critical point in that route became the focus of the immense multinational. Thus after formal recommendation to the company to set up a refreshment station in the Cape (but not colonise the Cape yet) in 1652 the company sent its employees led by Jan Van Riebeeck to the Cape of Good Hope on the beaches of Table Bay. [Quick history on early settlement] The first encounters with the Khoi are famously depicted as largely peaceful and cohesive, and while no one can truly know what happened (when the proverb that until the lion writes its own history it will always be written from the eyes of the hunter rings true) given past encounters with Europeans it is likely true to have been peaceful but tense. The Dutch company continued to develop the refreshment station among the fynbos of the table bay in an environment described as