The ANC and Ideology – I

It’s strange how even the best of intentions can produce results contrary to what was planned.

It’s also strange how the most meticulous planning and foresight can fail to predict outcomes at variance with what the planners had hoped to achieve.

Strange, too, is the fact that the more motivated and inspired the planner the more likely is the plan to go awry and the less likely the planner is to admit that the plan is not working.

The more ideologically pure is the plan then the more likely it is to come off the rails. The world is noted for its penchant to inject varying degrees of reality into the best thought-out and executed of Man’s schemes, dousing dreams with hefty sluices of ice-cold sanity. There are always those, however, who – regardless of the teeth-chattering shivers and goose bumps of the Arctic chills of real life – will persist in their cherished and cockeyed perceptions of the world as they believe it should be. Like the KFC advert in South Africa, showing two grown men sitting on a park bench in the depths of winter, both consuming some iced KFC confection and progressively shedding items of their warm winter clothes (down to their underwear), each seeking to show the other that he is not cold and is, in fact, quite warm, thank you very much, the ideologues and the proud will go to almost any lengths to deny the existence of the reality of the situation they find themselves in.

Recent South African history has more than its fair share of such idiocy.

The episodes earlier this year of xenophobic violence between different national, cultural, racial and economic groups within the townships and squatter camps of South Africa are but one example.

Having had the images and stories of the brutal black-on-black savagery that was perpetrated in the townships of South Africa flashed around the world – to the astonishment of the global population, given the previous propaganda of the ANC government that all was sweetness and light in the new ‘democratic’ and ‘egalitarian’ South Africa under the benevolence of the ANC – the government of South Africa was, initially, just as surprised as the rest of the world and failed to act in any meaningful way against the hatred and violence for a couple of weeks.

When, eventually, the government began, slowly and inadequately, to address the problem, the official line was merely that the attacks were merely spontaneous and random criminality – ignoring the widespread nature of the onslaught throughout much of the country.

As, finally, the scale of the problem began to be realised the government then turned to one of its old favourite lines of reasoning in times of crisis – viz; the attacks were said to be the result of the work of some unidentified and shadowy ‘third force’ (by implication, disaffected whites and their lackeys lusting after a return to the pre-1994 days of perceived power, privilege and glory) conspiring towards the destabilisation of the country and the overthrow of the ANC government. At which point, notably, the army was called in and troops were put on the streets in support of the police.

(Strikingly similar arguments had very quickly been produced by the ANC government when the country’s only commercial nuclear power station had been crippled by a technical failure, just prior to the realisation that the government and Eskom (the national parastatal solely responsible for the generation and distribution of electricity in South Africa) had blithely led the country into an economically disastrous power crisis. These politically bankrupt, inept and transparent arguments were quietly – and quickly – abandoned in the face of the incontrovertible evidence of the rank incompetence and stupidity of both Eskom and the government.)

Then, as the violence and xenophobia reached its height, the ANC government declared that, once the orgy of hatred had subsided, the victims of the attacks seeking refuge and safety in hastily set up tented camps away from the townships and squatter camps would, as a matter of government policy and ideology, be (forcibly, if need be) re-integrated back into the very same areas and neighbourhoods that had attacked, dispossessed and killed the poor bastards in the first place.

Such is the ideology and illusion of ANC thought and propaganda. The desperate need of the ANC to promote and defend its communist ideas of what, according to their cherished conceptualisations of the world, should be – rather than what actually is – drives them into a denial of reality. The sad part is that they then drag everybody else who is subject to their power into a world that does not exist – much to the discomfort and danger of those who do not share or enjoy the benefits and privileges of the ANC leadership and their ivory tower ideologues.

The concept of different tribes, races and socio-economic groups living peacefully side-by-side in joy and harmony is alluring. It should, perhaps, be an ultimate goal of mankind’s. But in the here and now of human social life on this planet opposites tend to repel and likes attract. It is a simple fact of human behaviour in this day and age, as well as throughout our history.

Elsewhere in Africa where refugees seek shelter from whatever political, military or economic storm they wish to avoid they are usually placed together in camps away from local populations where frictions could ensue. Even without coercive factors such as wars and famines to drive people away from their own homes, those fleeing less life-threatening situations have, historically, tended towards one another; the economic migrations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in America and Australia saw Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles, Germans, Chinese, Russians, Armenians and Slavs naturally coalescing into their own communities and neighbourhoods because that was what they felt most comfortable with and where they felt safest until, after a number of generations, they were able to assimilate enough of the predominant local culture to be able to venture out into that culture without undue threat.

So, the ANC and its government is intent upon farting against the thunder of human nature. Already many of those displaced during the xenophobic attacks have been returned to their previous abodes. (Others, seeing the writing on the wall, chose to return to their home countries, preferring the known evils and hazards of life in Zimbabwe, DRC, Mozambique, Somalia and Sudan to the uncertain hospitalities of South Africans.)

Already the rumblings in the townships and the squalid squatter camps have begun. Already the voices of dissent and despair over the re-integration have begun as mumbles of the ordinary people. Already have begun the not-so-quiet and subtle statements of local councilors that the ‘nkerekwere’ are not welcome – especially, for example, those Somali shopkeepers in the Western Cape townships who are seen to be too hard working and undercutting the prices of the local spaza store owners. It will only be a matter of time.

Criminality aside, it is only the ANC and its dogmatic and slavish adherence to its unrealistic and disgraced theories of a Marxist Utopia that is to blame for the initial outburst of xenophobic and genocide-intended violence and dispossession. It was the ANC and its inept and corrupt government that admitted millions of illegal migrants into the country and it was the same crowd that failed then to put in place the necessary social structures to police and care for those immigrants. And it is the ANC that, as with the Zimbabwean situation, continues to steadfastly maintain that no problem exists – as if ignoring or wishing away anything that is inconvenient to one’s perception of the world is really going to achieve something.

Nor is it any good to say that the USSR and the old Soviet bloc managed to keep racial and social peace in a wide-flung empire. That was only achieved at the point of a gun and under the constant threat – and utilisation – of ruthless repression from state organs such as the KGB and the Red Army. Despite recent talk from the ANC of instituting so-called ‘street committees’ as a means of doing what the South African Police Service clearly are unable to achieve – controlling and reducing crime – the ANC has neither the skills nor the stomach for such direct social repression, to say nothing of its lack of desire to admit to the world that only force could integrate a tribally diverse society and that its theories are valueless.

But such are the consequences of any system of political, social and economic control that is applied, willy-nilly, as a complete solution to the theoretical ills of mankind rather than as a set of aspirations and objectives which need to be realised within the context of the real world and the differing sets of circumstances in which different people find themselves from time to time. Such systems, applied without care and consideration, de-humanise and alienate those they are intended and theorised to more fully humanise and empower. Human beings are, first and foremost, individual beings within a social environment – not the other way around. And therein lies the danger of systems of thought in which people are primarily catagorised as, variously, (and by way of example) ‘the masses’, ‘serfs’, ‘consumers’, ‘the proletariat’, ‘peasants’, ‘communists’, ‘Democrats’, ‘Republicans’, ‘Tories’, and so on.

De-humanise humans for long enough and, eventually, they will behave as animals.

Spearpoint.

9^th September 2008

African Statesmanship

The recent death of Zambia’s President Levy Mwanawasa is a tragedy for not only Zambia but also for the entire African continent.

My understanding is that Zambia has prematurely lost a leader of exceptional calibre who was striving to make a genuine difference to the lives of Zambians, particularly in his determined fight against corruption.

Almost uniquely amongst world leaders, Mwanawasa publicly confronted and then prosecuted his predecessor Frederick Chiluba for corruption and fraud. Mwanawasa’s decision to do so cannot have been easy. Chiluba had, after all, been the one to groom and present Mwanawasa as his successor and there must have been some considerable pressure from within the ruling party not to rock the boat (thereby spilling the cash) and to spare Chiluba public humiliation – to say nothing of Chiluba’s underlings, hangers-on, presumed beneficiaries and possible co-conspirators.

Instead, Levy Mwanawasa chose to be a statesman, deciding – as far as possible in a political environment – to honour his promises to the electorate by adhering to the principles (oft-repeated but rarely practiced by the power hungry) of his country’s Constitution. In so doing he appears to have honoured himself and his country, as well as having set a worthy example to his constituency.

Although Spearpoint never had the opportunity to meet and know Levy Mwanawasa personally, the hope is that Zambia will allow Spearpoint to join (albeit remotely) in their mourning as a fellow African.

For the demise of Zambia’s Mwanawasa is a loss not only for Zambia but is also a loss for the whole of Africa – especially southern Africa.

As at home, Mwanawasa displayed the courage to stand up and be counted in the face of the prevailing antipathy in the southern African region towards corruption, fraud and dictatorship in the form of Robert Mugabe’s tyrannical and outright criminal regime in Zimbabwe.

With the tacit support of Ian Khama, the President of Botswana, Mwanawasa alone named and shamed Mugabe for what he is, what he represents and what he perpetrates against his own country and people.

In so doing Mwanawasa also implicitly named and shamed all those other African leaders who, despite mounting and convincing evidence, have given Mugabe political support and sustenance either directly and openly or through their failure to criticise and isolate Zimbabwe for its current policies and situation.

Principal amongst these has been South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki and his ANC government.

Appointed by SADC to mediate in the Zimbabwe crisis, Mbeki has epitomized the approach of many other African leaders: don’t rock the boat; don’t embarrass Mugabe; don’t expose Mugabe; don’t fracture the façade of imagined African so-called solidarity; don’t further reinforce the global perception of Africa’s inability to identify, address and remedy its own problems, including those of poverty, corruption, crime, ignorance and indolence.

Notwithstanding recent critical comments from Jacob Zuma (as President of the ANC) regarding Zimbabwe, the fact remains that South Africa continues to pussyfoot around the person of Mugabe and the crisis in Zimbabwe and refuses – publicly, at least – to acknowledge that a problem exists. In Mbeki’s own words on the subject, “There is no crisis”. Sentiments echoed by the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The ANC must be living in gaga land.

It’s obviously not a crisis when a neighbour of South Africa destroys its economy (inflation admitted by the Zimbabwean government just this month to be running at not less than eleven million percent – that’s eleven followed by six zeroes, folks), and driving no less than four million of its own citizens into South Africa – mostly illegally – to escape starvation and political persecution (and who knows how many into other neighbouring countries).

And how can it be a crisis when even the great ANC, champion of the art of rule by smoke and mirrors, has been appointed (in the person of Thabo Mbeki) by SADC to mediate between Mugabe and the Zimbabwean Opposition.

Yet the appointment of a mediator implies conflict, dispute and actual or potential crisis. That much SADC has got right; where it went wrong was appointing Mbeki and his team as mediators. Not only do the mediators deny the existence of a situation which they have consciously agreed to fix, but they are unsuited and unqualified to carry out such a role since they have consistently and laughably maintained for many years now that within their own borders there are no crises in law enforcement, the judicial system, education, HIV, AIDS, TB and other health matters, housing, and so on.

SADC erred in appointing the ANC and Mbeki. It is patently clear that these guys couldn’t organise an orgy in a brothel, given their record of domestic service delivery and good governance.

The mediation between the parties in Zimbabwe has stalled. Naught has been achieved. Mugabe continues to do as he pleases – even to the extent of re-convening Zimbabwe’s parliament (which, according to Zimbabwe’s Constitution, should have occurred months ago) before there is any clarity and agreement on how power division and sharing will prevail in the new government.

Now, doesn’t that just speak volumes on the dedication and abilities of the so-called mediators?

Excepting Zambia and Botswana, no-one in SADC has had the courage to slap Mugabe silly and to tell him to stop behaving like a spoiled brat and to stop embarrassing all of Africa with his puerile behaviour. Mugabe’s arrogance and assumed impunity – watch his disjointed marionette-like swagger in public – has never been challenged by South Africa and its continental cronies.

Indeed, South Africa has shown great concern over Mugabe’s dignity and has been keen to protect that dubious quality. But at what price? Where is the dignity of those Zimbabweans, forever on the cusp of eviction, arrest and starvation, free-falling into the black hole of faster-than-light inflation who have had to separate from their families and homes in order to cross the borders of neighbours looking for some means of sustenance and to live in the additional and constant fear of deportation as illegal immigrants? Where, in South Africa, is the dignity for those South Africans already suffering under the laissez-faire incompetencies of the ANC dictatorship who now have to make room in already overcrowded cities, townships and squatter camps for swarms of desperate immigrants who also want a share of what is clearly an inadequate, mismanaged and ill-divided political and economic cake?

Does the ANC have no shame? Is it not ashamed that it continues its rhetoric and spin doctoring even though it clearly cannot do its job – either at home or around the table in Harare? Just what are the criteria against which it measures itself and which, obviously, allow it in its collective politburo mind to continue its rule?

Of course, shame and admission of error are not matters for easy admission by any politician even in the normal course of events, much less at any other time. Such is the nature of the beast. (Also, incidentally, such is the nature of those that look for and permit the politicians to rule; populations and electorates tend to be lazy in thinking for themselves and constantly seek the comfort of having someone else do their thinking for them. A contradiction of the human condition is that, of all the creatures on the planet, humans have the greatest ability to deal with change, challenge and chance yet are the most persistent in their – often unconscious and unspoken – drive for certainty and comfort.)

Admission of error in Africa is very difficult. Culturally the strong man must be seen to be strong, even if – especially if – wrong. The advent of colonial rule, with all the embarrassments that that brought, together with the displays of power and material goods by the colonial powers, then provided the need to display to the world that Africa and Africans could achieve the same themselves without outside intervention.

The loss of face when African nations screw things up is immense – far more so than the purported Oriental perceptions of face. This is why, for example, racism and colonialism are frequently used as catchphrases to divert attention away from the true reasons for African failure.

Mugabe blames the racism and imperialism of Britain and America for his devastation of the Zimbabwean economy and social structure. Mbeki and many of his colleagues blame racism in South Africa for the failure of many of the ANC’s policies and programmes. It is far less embarrassing and far easier to fix the blame rather than the problem – particularly where personal political careers and ambitions might be at stake. It’s an African pastime; it didn’t rain enough; it rained too much; we don’t have enough money; foreigners are taking our women and jobs; the Whites don’t share; the British conspire against our sovereignty; the Chinese steal our resources; the Indians are lazy and greedy; the Zulus cannot be trusted and steal everything not nailed down; the World Food Programme gave our starving people the wrong food; it goes on and on.

Spearpoint is not suggesting that there are not grains of truth and reality in some or all of the above excuses. But that is what they are – excuses. Fourteen years after shouldering aside the burdens of apartheid the ANC and its stalwarts still glibly trot out racism, colonialism and imperialism as reasons behind its failures in almost every arena of life in South Africa. They fail to see that history is history; it is past and passé. History is a guide for and to the future, not a Balkan-type motivation for perpetuating old horrors as justification for interminable inefficiencies and inadequacies.

Unfortunately, it is in the past that the ANC finds itself mired. Starting its existence as a protest and liberation movement the ANC has been unable to shrug off that mindset. Fourteen years into government the ANC is trapped in a time-warp, still slavishly employing the same slogans, gestures and thought patterns of its Communist Party origins and history dating back to the October Revolution and the Long March when those who were not for the movement were targetted as enemies and to be treated accordingly. Defunct ideology and the mindless mouthing of Cold War rhetoric serve little useful purpose when the living are here and now in a world that has moved on from what may or may not have happened centuries ago.

The ANC has failed to heed its own ideological teachings and raison d’etre which were to grow, improve and develop. The ANC has fallen at the first hurdle of metamorphosing from a liberation movement into a credible political party and sustainable government. The eyes and thoughts of the ANC remain firmly fixed on the perceived glories of its past where, by virtue of the then prevailing circumstances, it was easy to exhibit and enjoy disciplined solidarity since the goals of the organisation were simple to define and explain and the enemy was easily identified. Now in government the aims and objectives are far fuzzier in the face of the need to be a responsible and credible representative of an entire and diverse population; the temptation for which the ANC has fallen has been that of remaining a lobby group for a narrow and specific segment of the populace. The ANC continues to view everything non-ANC as being ‘the enemy’ and has behaved and responded accordingly.

Thus, for example, ANC officials will blame ‘white mentality’ and resistant racism for poor results on the rugby pitch or athletics field where points are not awarded for ideological or racial purity but for excellence in performance. Excellence cannot be legislated or enforced. It must be scouted, nurtured and developed organically. A fat runner cannot be expected to be able to produce satisfactory results in the marathon, regardless of any racial or socio-economic origins from which the individual may have come; the athlete must be made fit and then trained in his discipline before adequate results can be reasonably expected. Likewise, a school leaver, unable to add, subtract and so on cannot become a computer technician or electrician until he has had the time and resources granted him to master sufficient of the basics to enable him to then progress on to more specialised (and better paid) areas of competence.

Similarly with the Zimbabwe situation. The ANC remains locked in its perennial ‘circle-the-wagons’ mentality of giving greater weight to old loyalties than to recognition of getting the job done and removing those who fail to produce results. The support given the ANC by Mugabe and Zimbabwe during the ANC’s years of opposition to the then South African regime are viewed by the ANC to be perpetual bonds of debt that far outweigh any consideration of the abilities and rationale of the creditor in that relationship. That Mugabe is an egomaniacal despot who has so alienated the people of both his own country and others around the world that the economic and political fabric of Zimbabwe now lies tattered and fallen appears to matter less to the ANC than the perceived debt owed to Mugabe by the ANC. Worse still, the negative impact upon South Africa and other SADC countries stemming from Mugabe’s depredations is clearly considered by the ANC to be of little import; it could be argued that what happens in Zimbabwe is their own affair and they should be allowed to get on with it, but the argument fails if the actions of Zimbabwe directly impact on South Africa. Would the ANC retain its present stance if the Zimbabwean army were to invade South Africa in order to seize assets no longer available in Zimbabwe? Or would the ANC turn a blind eye, again, and insist that no crisis existed?

As the governing party of South Africa the ANC’s prime responsibility is to the country and all the people of South Africa. The ANC’s responsibility to Zimbabwe (or any other country, for that matter) is secondary, at best. Get your own house in order. Only then – not before – and if there is something to spare, can you turn your charitable efforts elsewhere.

Hubris can be a terrible thing. It blinds one to failings and shortcomings which, if pride be briefly set aside, could be corrected with a minimum of fuss and damage. There is no shame or loss of self-esteem in saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t have the skills right now to correct this situation” and then turning to others who possess the requisite knowledge. Knowledge and skills know no skin colours – but where they are claimed when, in fact, they are absent then there is a real and severe humiliation when the deficit is finally revealed.

Levy Mwanawasa’s legacy – in part, at least – will be of declaring to the world that just because fellow black Africans now largely control their own destinies it is still not right or acceptable when laws and principles are broken and cast aside – just as it is unacceptable when ordinary people suffer because their leaders are too proud or ideologically blinkered to acknowledge that they are relatively new to the business of running their own affairs and to bring in the required expertise.

Spearpoint.

26^th August 2008

Happy Birthday, Mr. Mandela. And, By The Way, Please Don’t Die Yet.

 

Today is the 90^th birthday of Nelson Mandela (‘Madiba’) and the whole world has been sending their best wishes and thanks to him.

 

At the risk of being accused of jumping on the bandwagon, I, too, would like to extend my own personal greetings and wishes to him. Not that they are likely to reach him, of course – I very much doubt that the great man is a subscriber to this blog. And even if he were, I suspect that he might not wish to admit to the fact. Nonetheless, my wishes for his special day and for his continued good health and longevity are sincere and heartfelt.

 

However, today is not as joyous as it could perhaps be for far too many South Africans and, in light of that fact, I would wish to amend my birthday wishes to Mr. Mandela as follows: ‘Many happy returns of the day, Madiba, and please could you find the strength and energy to come out of retirement for a short while and put our country back on track’.

 

Ordinarily, the 21^st century political and government scene should, after all the lessons of the past few hundred years around the world, be one where the characters and characteristics of individual politicians and leaders (not necessarily the same thing, by the way), whilst important, should not, however, be dominant over the system of prevailing political and economic theory and practice.

 

Despite considerable fear at the time of the transition from the old South African order, Mr. Mandela proved to be an acceptable exception to the above statement. His humanity, compassion, statesmanship and deep discipline marked South Africa out as being a beacon of hope to many other countries around the globe – to say nothing of those people who had, directly and indirectly, suffered under the pre-1994 government. In so doing, Mr. Mandela bequeathed a bold and immensely valuable legacy to South Africa.

 

Which is precisely why today is not as happy an occasion as it could – and should – be as the great man and a significant portion of the planet celebrates the start of his 91^st year.

 

The stark reality is that the Mandela bequest to all South Africans has been defiled and squandered by those who took up the reins of power and influence after his departure. Sure, the words of those now steering our ship of state on to the political, social and economic rocks are filled with obsequiousness to the man and his vision; but the lip-service is cynical and self-serving when compared with the actions and motivations of those now with their hands on the tiller.

 

Some fourteen years after the 1994 transition South Africa appears to have progressed little towards those objectives set out and exemplified by Nelson Mandela.

 

South Africa still has the obscenity of innumerable squatter camps. Where housing for the poor has been provided it is invariably small, mean and inadequate for the needs of growing families and entrepreneurs. The squatter camps of the next decade and on will be the RDP and low-cost housing projects of the townships.

 

South Africa still has the obscenity of a gargantuan and permanent crime wave (now no longer excusable as a form of anti-Apartheid political action) which is, in terms of volume and nature, on a par – at least – with any war zone you might wish to name on the planet.

 

South Africa, far from leading the rest of Africa away from the stereotypes of the continent, has actively joined the club of banana republics in the race to grab the titles of the most corrupt and most politically expedient societies in the world. Political and social leaders vie with one another, it appears, to see who can extract the most money and power from the cookie jar of government service and public finance. Nepotism and cronyism are rife locally and internationally. Our foreign policies – most notably towards Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, and Sudan (amongst others) – are an international joke and a domestic embarrassment.

 

South Africa’s education system (never noted for its egalitarianism or excellence) is collapsing under the weight of acute teacher shortages and administrative incompetencies.

 

Similarly, the South African public health system, under the leadership of a minister who denies the realities of HIV/AIDS and would prefer to treat those thus afflicted with beetroot, spinach and whatever local witch doctors might concoct from unprovenanced ingredients, is imploding from staff and skills shortages, graft and maladministration.

 

South African infrastructure is unraveling. The road system is (literally) breaking up under the traffic. No new major road or highway has been constructed since 1994. Public transport is so piecemeal as to be non-existent. Eskom and the electrical generation and distribution network under its care is a monstrous caricature of what the ANC inherited from its predecessors.

 

South African government is ceasing to work properly. Government departments are slothful and inefficient. Where once a passport would, routinely, be issued within ten to fourteen days, applicants now have to wait for upwards of six months. Driving tests and the issuance of licences, once accomplished within days can now – depending on the locality – take over one year.

 

South African public ethics and the moral fibre of the country are disintegrating. Public officials, no longer afraid of their subjection to the law of the land, openly – and oftentimes violently – compete for power. Politicians and government departments flagrantly flout or ignore court orders and rulings. The judiciary appears to be becoming enmeshed in political rivalries and factionalism.

 

At least 26% of all South Africans, from all racial and socio-economic groupings, are reported to be either in the process of emigration or are actively considering it.

 

So, Mr. Mandela, Happy Birthday.

 

But would you please at least consider coming out of retirement for a year in order to put our house back in some semblance of order? It’s a lot to ask and I’m sure you are tired. It would be appreciated – especially by those who are closest to your heart; the poor, the elderly, the sick, the young.

 

And – please – don’t die anytime soon. For then South Africa will have no-one with any political integrity or moral authority left to shield us hapless common folk from the predations of who are ambitious, greedy and ruthless.

 

Spearpoint.

 

18^th July 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education and Socialisation

Perhaps I am a dinosaur. Perhaps I have grown too old for the world as it is developing. I am, after all, a baby boomer – sliding down the final (fatal) dip-slope of life’s roller coaster ride.

But I cannot escape the feeling that, back in the days before the advent of invasive political, psychological and sociological theorising into every aspect of our lives, we actually didn’t do too badly.

The vast majority of mankind’s achievements occurred in the times before the long-haired men and short-haired women were, inexplicably, given licence to usurp our common, hard-won knowledge and experience with apparently attractive yet unproven theories of human behaviour and motivation.

Plato. Aristotle. Einstein. Galileo. The builders of the pyramids. James Cook. Brunel. The Roman road and bridge/aqueduct designers and builders.

Just a handful of names that indicate unparalleled achievement despite the lack of all our modern aids to comfortable and easy living.

Maybe some of the above individuals and groups grew up in privileged and indulgent (for their times) circumstances. Maybe they didn’t. I don’t know. But I do know that, compared with the facilities we have available to us today, the accomplishments of those people and groups were wrested from the world in spite of their lack of our modern amenities – and of which they were, of course, quite unaware. They may, too, have been simply trying, to get as far from Nature as possible in their own ways.

It is self-evident that everything we have enjoyed and continue to enjoy in the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries could have been made possible only on the back of the work of previous centuries. We owe an immeasurable debt to our forebears and their achievements in the face of a hostile world.

So why, then, have we been so eager in the last fifty years or so to ignore, even repudiate, the lessons of at least a couple of millenia? Why do we reject the experience of our species and suddenly veer off in totally new, unexplored and unproven directions where the education and socialisation of our children are concerned?

Where did we get these modern theories and methods of education? What possessed us to embrace concepts of human behaviour quite at variance with what we have proved throughout our history to work and yield the best results?

History has shown us that the three R’s (Reading, wRiting and ‘Rithmetic) have formed the basis from which almost all  great human achievements have sprung.

I am not saying that the old methods of education were always particularly fun or, even, inspiring. As a product of the “old school” (forgive the pun) of education, I can personally vouch for the despair, the mind-numbing boredom and apparent lack of relevance that some school subjects – and some of their teachers – generated in their pupils. Yet I can multiply and divide in my head, construct reasonably coherent sentences in my mother tongue, spell without too many atrocities being committed and, generally speaking, get by in the world without necessary recourse to calculators, computers, spell-check programmes or video/computer games.

Also, I am able – within limits – to ponder and discuss matters as diverse as theology, astrophysics, philosophy, American history, politics, computers, motor mechanics, the history of spaceflight, business management, current affairs around the world, amongst others. Some of this ability stems, of course, from the passage of time and the accumulation of a wealth of experiences, but the seeds of the inclination to learn were sown during my time as a schoolchild undergoing a fairly normal primary and secondary education.

I mention this not because I wish anyone to think of me as a genius – I promise you I am very far from being that. It’s just that, in my youth I was inculcated with a desire and respect for knowledge of all kinds and I was schooled by ordinary yet great teachers who understood human nature sufficiently to know how and when to apply the carrot and the stick (in the case of the stick, sometimes literally) to engage my interest, to push my nose to the grindstone and to correct my inbuilt indolence and overall boyish wickedness.

Additionally, I was taught – both at home and at (a non-private) school – to be polite, respectful to my elders and betters (that is, pretty much the whole world) and presentable in my appearance. Shortcomings in these non-curricula matters and failure to achieve what was seen to be my potential in classroom business resulted in various possible sanctions; such sanctions ranged from additional homework, detentions or, worst of all (short of expulsion), corporal punishment in the form of the old-fashioned cane wielded by the Headmaster – a six-foot ex-Oxford rugby and rowing blue with the right arm swing and impact of Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay in my earlier school days) and a distressingly consistent sense of public and private right and wrong. One learned quickly not to indulge in activities likely to engage the Head’s interest or subsequent annoyance and if one actually experienced any of the school’s sanctions – but most especially stimulation of the gluteus maximus – one was taught shame, just as an added bonus.

Therein lay the secret – one learned. And the lessons were lifelong because failure was linked, directly and immediately, with pain of one sort or another.

I use and enjoy calculators, computers and other similar facilities, of course, because they are useful tools and enhance my life and what I do in many ways. However, I can not only survive but also prosper without them because, as a child, I was given the basic, primary tools of human intercourse – the three R’s. Today’s youth, by and large, do not have these facilities; instead they have only second or third generation tools which are derivatives and quite dependent upon other esoteric disciplines and technologies, rendering them vulnerable to failure when the power fails or the password is forgotten.

Not for today’s youngsters the repetitive chanting of the multiplication tables that forever embedded that knowledge in the heads of their parents. None of the writing and re-writing of words to fix in reluctant memories that “after ‘c’ the ‘e’ precedes the ‘i’. Oh! No! That is far too old-fashioned and cruel to inflict upon the poor little things. Result: almost an entire generation functionally unable to spell or perform mental arithmetic.

Surely it is crazy that a significant proportion of tertiary education entrants must be first made literate and numerate before being able to learn anything of their chosen speciality? “Tertiary” education, by definition, implicitly means that a certain level of mastery of precursor “Primary” and “Secondary” subjects has been attained. How can it be possible, for example, that a first year university student not only cannot spell and perform the most basic of arithmetical activities but also has to undergo special tuition in how to use a simple calculator?

It is not because kids are any less intelligent than previous generations. It is simply that we, as parents and teachers (I shall eschew the more modern politically correct terminology) have failed our children.

We have failed because we have abdicated our rights and duties to our children. We no longer carry the full moral and legal obligations of, once having brought kids into the world, teaching them the disciplines and morals of our society. We have allowed a self-proclaimed bunch of so-called “experts” to usurp our rights and duties of raising, encouraging and chastising our offspring in the ways that we, as the legal guardians of our own children, see best and according to our abilities. We have permitted ourselves, for reasons of convenience and fear of failure – induced by the experts – to surrender the moral and educational development of our children to complete strangers claiming esoteric knowledge beyond the ken of mere mortals such as you and me.

And now we are reaping the harvest of our negligence and cowardice.

Our kids are very poorly educated – not just in the basics of the three R’s but also the subject matter that is dependent upon the acquisition of those basics. The comment about being poorly educated does not necessarily refer to the depth of their knowledge in specific subjects and topics in which they are interested, rather it refers to the breadth of their knowledge and comprehension of matters beyond the immediate scope of those interests. In other words, the extent of general knowledge in school children and undergraduates leaves much to be desired.

Also our kids are ill-disciplined to the point of insolence and bored in the absence of constant external (usually, these days, electronic) stimuli. They are given no self respect as individuals; rather they are encouraged to always think of themselves as “team members”, sometimes to the extent where they are expected to learn and explore only as members of a group – group discussions, group role-play, group studying and so on. Individual intellectual activities are not encouraged; even in sport the emphasis tends to be on team activities, with, for example, gymnastics and athletics being relatively poorly encouraged. Individualism and individual effort is viewed and treated with frank suspicion.

Those who indulge in those cosy theories which demand that the education and socialisation of our young should be only according to neat little formulae which rely upon delivery in “fun” and “positive” packaging but do not extend to ensuring actual comprehension and application of what is being taught to real life have missed the point in a big way.

Consider a child at the time of birth.

There is nothing, but nothing, more selfish and self-centred than a new-born baby in the entire Universe. Only its needs and demands are of any importance to itself; beyond itself there is naught of interest, value or importance. From the baby’s perspective the rest of the Universe is there only to serve him and his immediate needs. The parents amongst you will understand what I mean.

Society is, however, generally tolerant of such behaviour in the very young. Recognition is given to the fact that the infant is, in fact, helpless and makes allowance for the limited ways in which ones so young can communicate and interact with their environment. Sleepless nights, evilly malodorous nappies and decibel-damaged eardrums are accepted as temporary burdens to be borne on the path to raising a socially adapted – and acceptable – human being.

However, society does not expect or accept such behaviour beyond a very limited point. At some time or other a child has to learn to sit, stand, walk, eat on its own, bathe itself, tie its shoelaces, speak, learn to read and write and so on up to the point where that child is, eventually, independent of others and not only take care of itself but also start contributing to the society in which it was born and raised.

But the world into which the child is born is primarily a physical world wherein lie many physical and non-physical dangers which could harm, maim or even kill its inhabitants. In the initial stages of a child’s life the main threats to its well-being are almost all physical – lack of food being, perhaps, the foremost. The child soon learns, for example, that one type of physical discomfort can be readily eased by screaming its head off until its mother extracts a breast and transfers milk into its gullet.

How, though, is an otherwise completely ignorant child, unable to speak or understand speech, to learn, for example, that sharp things bite and hot things burn? One way is to allow the child to touch the hot stove or to play with that rotary saw – left carelessly plugged in and on the floor – and to learn that way, but the lesson could be extreme, even terminal. The first learning experience could well be the last. Not particularly efficient.

 Now one characteristic of the human species is that of passing on the lessons learned by previous generations without necessarily requiring the new generation having to slavishly undergo the very same experiences. Knowledge about what has been found to be safe to approach, handle and eat has often been taught in the form of folklore, fables, traditions and certain religious taboos; the wolf, the snake and the preparation of certain foods are some of the many topics that have had warnings passed down from distant generations to the present.

Other, more immediate, dangers such as the hot stove, the empty electric socket in the wall and knowing how and when to safely cross the road require equally immediate action in order to teach the child that his behaviour is hazardous to himself and/or others. Initially, perhaps, the parent will scold the child – sometimes this is sufficient. However, to reinforce the warning, a scolding – together with a smack – gives the child the associative link that what he is doing is dangerous and could have painful repercussions. The physical aspect of the rebuke is important since the child immediately experiences an unwanted unpleasant physical sensation which, whilst not as painful or dangerous to his well-being as the actual hazard itself, gives him a clear indication that pain is associated with what he is doing, to say nothing of the parental disapproval of his actions – although, let’s be quite clear, spoken parental disapproval on its own is just not enough for most children.

A physical admonishment for a physical being in a physical world is the only sure way of ensuring the lesson is learned. The very design of our bodies confirms this: pain is the warning mechanism of our bodies that what we have just done was not, perhaps, the best thing to do if we wish to continue and enjoy our life.

And, because humans are also social animals, similar tactics are required for the correction of other types of mistake. Thus, although being cheeky or rude to a stranger might not, at first glance, appear to merit a smacked bottom, a physical rebuke is not necessarily out of place. One way or another, our social actions result, sooner or later, in physical consequences. Rudeness to a pretty girl is not likely to get you laid; dressing like a slob is not likely to advance your hopes of securing that cushy job you’ve had your eye on; and giving cheek to a stranger could result in a knuckle sandwich or, if you’re really unlucky, having a gun pulled on you.

These are the hard-won lessons garnered by our parents, grandparents and other ancestors way back to the dim past of our origins – and the way they were delivered to each new generation must have been effective since we have, generally speaking, been quite successful in adding to our numbers and improving our lot over the millenia.

So why do we now want to overturn all that accumulated experience of teaching our children? Why do we allow the psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, educational theorists and every other self-important bugger with a couple of letters after his name inflict their plausible and self-interested ideas upon those most vulnerable to the hazards of the world – our children – whilst we ignore the damage being done to our social morals, ethics and cohesion? Why do we permit total strangers outside of our families with who-knows-what agendas to dictate that we cannot physically chastise our children if we think it best? Have we, as a society, lost our minds? Do we understand what it means to deprive a child of unpleasant, even painful, educative experiences and the later effects of that deprivation on the adult?

Where once humans experienced war, natural disaster and individual tragedies and then just got on with life as best they could afterwards, now we require psychological counselling every time we don’t get what we want. Didn’t get that job? See your shrink to re-build your ego. Got shot at (a very real possibility in South Africa) in the street? Quick! Get some post-traumatic stress counselling! Your pet hamster died of old age? Start a grief counselling discussion group. Disturbed an armed robbery in Shoprite? Never ever shop there again. Better still, never step foot outside your front door again.

Sure, it’s great to see kids being childish and having fun. It’s one of the joys of being a parent. But another, even greater, parental joy is seeing your child advancing and maturing away from the innocence and dangers of childhood to responsible and socially acceptable adulthood. Part of that process is learning how to be a human being and, like it or not, learning is work – and often hard, painful work, at that – which must be undergone in order for that person to survive and prosper.

 We, particularly in the West, (I count myself as being a Westerner despite being a South African), and those under the influence of the West, have, since the Second World War, begun a process of weakening and debilitating ourselves in mind and spirit; we are handicapping our children – and their children’s children - in their ability to face the world as it really is and we are fogging their perceptions of life into believing it to be all soft clouds and pink bunny rabbits.

Are you willing to bet that the Chinese, the Congolese, the Brazilians and a whole bunch of others – including a lot of multinational corporations – are busy burying their heads under their pillows as we are? Not a chance. They’re all just waiting until we’re good and lost in cloud-cuckoo land so that they can come in and take what they want from us.

Spearpoint.