Connect with us

Insight

Killing statues

Published

on

Men could build mountains just to have their names remembered if they could. In fact, they have built entire cities that are jungles of steel and concrete for the sole purpose of being remembered forever, as if there is a forever. In my opinion forever is a non-existent figment of the narcissist’s imagination that holds the false notion that eternity is a measurable entity, which it is not for nothing lasts forever. Eternity and oblivion are equidistant in the mind and in the body, and in the spirit.

The arguments from both sides of the debate on statues are valid, but the one question that nags one is: why is it that human civilisation finds human and other effigies rendered in marble, bronze and other metals bones of contention? Why should the sculpted figure of an individual be the cause to chaos as we have seen in the post-George Floyd murder by the police events? We have seen acts of pillaging and sheer rampage committed in the name of removing colonial monuments and statues, as if such figures whose statues were being attacked were actually alive or cared.

Remember the looting and uprising that followed #Rhodesmustfall in South Africa a few seasons ago, remember the toppling of the statues of Saddam and Gadaffi, remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and many other falls of statues. The demolition of monuments and statues puts into question the verity of the arguments around the erection or wrecking of statues.

The airplane that takes off from Moshoeshoe I international airport will land at O. R. Tambo International. The latter airport is still Jan Smuts Airport in my mind, though I know that calling it such could draw fire from certain quarters despite me holding the right to keep my own arguments and opinions. The basic assertion I hold is that the new post-apartheid government should have simply built their own airport and named it after their own ‘struggle’ heroes and not just usurped the name and placed their own hero’s name over that of the old.

Advertisement

Jan Smuts still stays as General Jan Smuts in my mind, and he did play a part in transforming the progress of the country of his birth and death into a state and a nation. Erasing his name for the sake of another is just plain vindictive self-worship on the part of the former struggle heroes.

In fact, such a name change defies the basis of the tenets of forgiveness and reconciliation many of the post-independence movements often proclaim in their lobbying speeches. Erasing a name and assuming the habit of the owner of the name simply means that there was a form of covetousness for the countenance and character somewhere deep in the psyche of whoever goes and changes street names and the names of buildings constructed in the colonial era. One who claims to hate the system of colonialism only to put their name on some colonial era infrastructure is in plain terms the expression of hypocrisy based on personal interest.

The renaming of various buildings, roads, and even spaces for the sake of ‘honouring’ certain individuals is in itself an expensive process. The exercise is a narcissistic affair executed largely for the sake of political appeasement of those supposedly hurt by the previous regimes, and a type of ‘thank you’ token done more for the sake aggrandisement than real honour. It serves the living none to change a street’s name because it actually robs them of the funds that could be better used to ease the burden of their travails in the face of poverty, disease, and unemployment.

Those who find the exercise necessary may be justified in their pursuit, with the basic argument being that the said hero or heroine needs to be honoured in one way or another. This is a valid argument in the case where the honouring of such a dead hero or heroine does not infringe on the funds of the state coffers that could be better used to serve the living, or, if such an honour does not re-ignite the pain felt by a certain section of society.

To erect monuments in memory of contested figures and to hand out posthumous honours whilst the world of the living is crumbling around the living poor is in my terms hypocrisy, for you cannot appease one side at the expense of the other if the concept of justice is followed to its core. What does a bronze statue give to the nation anyway? Only pride I guess, and pride is a dangerous vice to have.

Advertisement

Those figures that really understand themselves see no necessity in being epitomised after they are dead and gone, for they know that they have done enough in their lifetimes to be remembered on the lips of the people they came across. There is just no need for a plaque or epitaph on their graves or crypts, for their lives are in themselves a book that shall be read by the following generations of believers and non-believers in their cause.

The erection of a statue is just that, erection of a monument in stone or metal bearing the countenance of the figure who lived life to the full for the sake of not only himself, but for the sake of others as well. I have always been a staunch follower of the Cuban form of communism (not those other vague forms whose head and tail are found somewhere in the depths of capitalism: the masquerading type of communism without real communal love for other peoples of the world.

The Cuban doctors around the world this point in time are the direct fruits of the Cuban Revolution, and they are saving the world), and my belief in this system of social living was based in the real lives of the two leading figures in its origins, that is Commandante Fidel Castro and Commandante Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara de la Serna.

One was a lawyer and the latter was a qualified medical professional, two professions that throw man into the thick of the bane of social maladies, leading the practitioner thereof into the face of all that is bothering mankind on a daily basis, leaving him a better individual in terms of understanding humanity and humanness.

Advertisement

For these types of people, the idea that all we are is dust in the wind is a reality that they live to the point beyond death and that is one of the main reasons why they shun the type of praise the capitalist always showers on their most loyal dog of war. Being kind to others is not worthy of praise, and sacrifice for the sake of others is not worthy of endless honours, for then it defies the spirit with which such a deed was made, selflessness needs no motivation for it is in its makeup the very expression of who God is, that one shall love their neighbour as they love themselves, meaning that one naturally would wish no ill to fall upon their neighbour regardless of whether such an individual is not their kith or kin.

The expectation is not that they will be lauded for their act of courage in the name of the welfare of others; acknowledgement in the form of respect is enough. It is only the leader whose deeds bred emptiness, poverty, and desolation who works really hard to be honoured for doing what they took an oath to perform for the citizens of their land (with the palm on the Bible or some holy book).

These ones’ promises are as empty as the belly they often enter the seats of governance with, and their demand for praise matches their loquacity. All of us are but dust in the wind, and our acts of charity are in fact the rent we pay for our stay on earth graciously given to all of us, so said Muhammad Ali (Cassius Marcellus Clay the boxer). The modern politician needs to remember that before jumping into honours for vague glories.

An article from The Guardian (3 December 2016) published after the death of Fidel Castro and covering his brother Raúl’s declaration that his government would prohibit the naming of streets or public monuments after his brother Fidel in keeping with the leader’s (Fidel’s) desire to avoid developing a personality cult. Told to a crowd gathered to pay homage to Fidel, this declaration sealed my admiration to the man I consider to be one of the most selfless human beings I have come across in my brief lifetime. Raúl was honouring his brother’s desire that:

“Once dead, his name and likeness would never be used on institutions, streets, parks or other public sites, and that busts, statues or other forms of tribute would never be erected”.
The ‘mates’ or comrades in arms on the African mainland have a different view, naming everything in memory of their late ‘struggle’ friends and affiliates and erecting statues in the same places where those they toppled once stood.

Advertisement

It does not make common sense to me why other statues are not worthy of standing in given political eras when all statues stand for one thing, re-memory and history. There is no way one can erase history, and I find the exercise of speaking in the name of erasing the memory of a long gone past a futile affair (useless in fact).

Toppling a statue only removes the statue from its pedestal but does not erase its memory in the minds of those that know where it stood (see the blatant refusal by Belgium to beg for forgiveness despite the atrocities King Leopold committed in the Congo: what will toppling his statue serve when there is no acknowledgement of his heinous crimes in Africa?).

Erecting or toppling a statue does not erase or strengthen the memory of the figure in whose name it stood or will stand: what is done is done as much as what will be will be. Arguing over the toppling or the erection is a waste of valuable time for nature would still go on and do the job of toppling the statue at a lesser cost than the original erectors actually paid to have it stand on its pedestal. Occultic in nature, the practice of raising statues and changing names like they are some totemic figures actually infringes on the time that could be spent to address clear current and prevalent challenges society is facing: we could step up our fight against Covid-19 instead of focusing on killing statues of tyrants and masochists.

We cannot speak ill of the dead, it is a waste of breath and time because the dead are dead and do not have any worldly care; this is one of the reasons why one finds a known criminal named ‘an honourable man’ at his funeral. This is not done for the sake of lying to the listeners, it is so done to help them forget and to heal from the pains they felt in such a figure’s lifetime, for the future offers more promise than what is past and dead.

It is a fact that we do not honour our past, and if some country finds it suitable to honour our heroes, I find the heckling over the erection of a monument in their name insulting not only to the memory but also to the intelligence of those that see it fit to do so. We are a country that at this point needs to forget, so that we can begin to forgive, so that we can reconcile and restore our land. This is what reform is about, not statutes about statues of past leaders that actually got this country somewhere instead of the nowhere we now find ourselves in.

Advertisement

Dealing with pandemics needs concerted effort, perhaps some of the statues are a plague that needs to be eradicated as we are dealing with the Coronavirus. However, the current spate of attacks on monuments and statues will drain effort that could be better focused on dealing with the rising Covid-19 pandemic; we will have the time to remove the figures of tyrants, slave drivers, and megalomaniacs that dot our cityscapes.

Depleting our energy on mass protests in a time when social-distancing is encouraged as a deterrent to the spread of the virus defies the basic purpose of the campaign to rid the world of the spread of the virus. This means that the rendition of the tyrant or the slave-master may actually kill more people than he did in his lifetime. Gathered around the statue made of brass, the living actually risk raising levels of infection because of the close proximity in which they work to take the statue off its pedestal.

There shall be time to melt the statues and to remove the plaques at their feet. Throwing them into the sea like it was done in England recently means that the statue will still be there underwater. Defacing them will not erase them from the pictures. The bigger picture says we should focus on the fight against the Coronavirus. Forget the statues and stay safely indoors for now.

Tšepiso S. Mothibi

Advertisement
Advertisement

Insight

Down in the Dump: Conclusion

Published

on

I closed last week by recording the dreadful news that trashy Trump had been elected called to mind WB Yeats’s poem “The Second Coming.” This is the poem whose opening lines gave Chinua Achebe the phrase “things fall apart.”

Yeats observes “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

It was written in 1919 and controversially uses Christian imagery relating to the Apocalypse and the Second Coming to reflect on the atmosphere in Europe following the slaughter of the First World War and the devastating flu epidemic that followed this.

It also reflects on the Irish War of Independence against British rule.

In lines that I can now read as if applying to the recent American election, Yeats mourns: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”

And then I can visualise Trump in the poem’s closing lines: “What rough beast is this, its hour come round at last, / Slouching towards Bethlehem to be born?”

Trump is certainly a rough beast and isn’t the choice of verb, slouching, just perfect? For a non-allegorical account of the threat posed by the Dump, I can’t do better than to quote (as I often do) that fine South African political journalist, Will Shoki. In his words: “Trump’s administration simply won’t care about Palestinians, about the DRC, about the Sudanese.

It will be indifferent to the plight of the downtrodden and the oppressed, who will be portrayed as weak and pathetic. And it will give carte blanche [that is, free rein] to despotism and tyranny everywhere.

Not even social media, that once revered third-space we associated with subversion and revolution in the first quarter of the 21st century can save us because Silicon Valley is in Trump’s back pocket.”

So what follows the triumph of the Dump? We can’t just sit down and moan and bemoan. In a more recent piece of hers than the one I quoted last week, Rebecca Solnit has observed: “Authoritarians like Trump love fear, defeatism, surrender. Do not give them what they want . . . We must lay up supplies of love, care, trust, community and resolve — so we may resist the storm.”

Katt Lissard tells me that on November 7th following the confirmation of the election result, in the daytime and well into the evening in Manhattan, New York, there was a large demonstration in support of the immigrants Trump despises.

And a recent piece by Natasha Lennard gives us courage in its title “The Answer to Trump’s Victory is Radical Action.”

So, my Basotho readers, how about the peaceful bearing of some placards in front of the US Embassy in Maseru? Because the Dump doesn’t like you guys and gals one little bit.

One last morsel. I had intended to end this piece with the above call to action, but can’t resist quoting the following comment from the New York Times of November 13th on Trump’s plans to appoint his ministers.

I’m not sure a satirical gibe was intended (the clue is in the repeated use of the word “defence”), but it made me guffaw nonetheless. “Trump will nominate Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host with no government experience, as his defence secretary. Hegseth has often defended Trump on TV.” You see, it’s all about the Dump.

  • Chris Dunton is a former Professor of English and Dean of Humanities at the National University of Lesotho.

 

Continue Reading

Insight

A question of personal gain

Published

on

Recently, an audio recording featuring the distressed MP for Thaba-Bosiu Constituency, Joseph Malebaleba, circulated on social media. The MP appears to have spent a sleepless night, struggling with the situation in which he and his associates from the Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) party were denied a school feeding tender valued at M250 million per annum.

In 2022, Lesotho’s political landscape underwent a significant shift with the emergence of the RFP led by some of the country’s wealthiest individuals. Among them was Samuel Ntsokoane Matekane, arguably one of the richest people in Lesotho, who took the helm as the party’s leader and ultimately, the Prime Minister of Lesotho.

The RFP’s victory in the general election raised eyebrows, and their subsequent actions have sparked concerns about the motivations behind their involvement in politics.

In an interview with an American broadcasting network just after he won the elections, Matekane made a striking statement, proclaiming that he would run Lesotho exactly as he runs his business.

At first glance, many thought he was joking, but as time has shown, his words were far from an idle threat. In the business world, the primary goal is to maximize profits, and it appears that the RFP is adopting a similar approach to governance.

Behind the scenes, alarming developments have been unfolding. A communication from an RFP WhatsApp group revealed a disturbing request from the Minister of Communications, Nthati Moorosi, who asked if anyone in the group had a construction business and could inbox her.

This raises questions about the RFP’s focus on using government resources to benefit their own business interests.

The government has been embroiled in a series of scandals that have raised serious concerns about the ethical conduct of its officials. Recent reports have revealed shocking incidents of misuse of public funds and conflicts of interest among key government figures.

Over the past two years, the RFP has been accused of awarding government contracts to companies affiliated with their members, further solidifying concerns about their self-serving agenda. For instance, vehicles purchased for the police were allegedly sourced from suppliers connected to a Minister’s son and MP.

The MP for Peka, Mohopoli Monokoane, was found to have hijacked fertiliser intended to support impoverished farmers, diverting crucial resources away from those in need for personal gain.

Such actions not only betray the trust of the public but also have a direct impact on the livelihoods of vulnerable communities. Monokoane appeared before the courts of law this week.

While farmers voice their concerns regarding fertiliser shortages, it seems that Bishop Teboho Ramela of St. Paul African Apostolic Church, who is also a businessman, is allegedly involved in a corrupt deal concerning a M10 million fertilizer allocation, benefiting from connections with wealthy individuals in government.

The procurement of fertiliser appears to be mired in controversy; recall that the Minister of Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Thabo Mofosi, was also implicated in the M43 million tender.

The renovation of government buildings with elaborate lighting systems was contracted to a company owned by the son of an MP. The RFP’s enthusiasm for infrastructure development, specifically road construction and maintenance, is also tainted by self-interest, as they have companies capable of performing these tasks and supplying the necessary materials, such as asphalt.

Minister Moteane finds himself in a compromising situation regarding a lucrative M100 million airport tender that was awarded to his former company. Ministers have even gone so far as to award themselves ownership of diamond mines.

Meanwhile, the nation struggles with national identification and passport shortages, which according to my analysis the RFP seems hesitant to address until they can find a way to partner with an international company that will benefit their own interests.

The people of Lesotho are left wondering if their leaders are truly committed to serving the nation or simply lining their own pockets. As the RFP’s grip on power tightens, the consequences for Lesotho’s democracy and economy hang precariously in the balance.

It is imperative that citizens remain vigilant and demand transparency and accountability from their leaders, lest the nation slide further into an era of self-serving governance.

In conclusion, the RFP’s dominance has raised serious concerns about the motives behind their involvement in politics. The apparent prioritisation of personal profit over public welfare has sparked widespread disillusionment and mistrust among the population.

As Lesotho navigates this critical juncture, it is essential that its leaders are held accountable for their actions and that the nation’s best interests are placed above those of individuals.

Only through collective effort and a strong commitment to transparency and accountability can Lesotho ensure a brighter future for all its citizens.

Ramahooana Matlosa

Continue Reading

Insight

Down in the Dump: Part One

Published

on

Attentive readers will recall that some weeks ago, I scribbled a series of pieces on elections due to be held in the UK, France, South Africa, and the USA. These elections were unusually critical for the well-being of their countries and even that of the world.

The results of the last of these elections are now with us and we are faced with the devastating news that Donald Trump is heading back to the White House.

I can hardly think of worse news to swallow or to equip the world to survive the years ahead.

The Dump, as I call him, is one of the most odious, dangerous, untrustworthy individuals currently inhabiting planet Earth. To cite a few of his demerits: he is a convicted felon; he believes climate change is a hoax; he is a sexist and a racist (one of his former military advisers has gone so far as to describe him as a fascist).

He is a snuggle buddy of the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and will probably discontinue aid to Ukraine as it resists invasion by Russia. Western European allies such as France, Germany and the UK are dismayed at his victory, as he holds the principles of democracy and constitutionalism in contempt.

As for Africa, well, he once described it as a “shit country,” so don’t look forward to much support from him.

Readers who spent time at the NUL will remember my dear colleague Katt Lissard who is now back home in New York. She spent some years with us as a Professor specialising in Theatre studies and was the Artistic Director of our international Winter / Summer Institute for Theatre for Development.

Many activists in the USA like Katt, who don’t see themselves as part of the political mainstream, chose to campaign for the Democrats and Kamala Harris in the hope of keeping Trump and the far right out of power. Confronted with the news of Trump’s victory, she sent an email to friends noting this was “just a brief check-in from the incomprehensible USA.”

She then explained: “We’re in shock and the early days of processing, but white supremacy, misogyny and anti-immigrant bias are alive and well and driving the boat here.” So, how do Katt and millions of decent, like-minded Americans plan to weather the storm?

Katt explained: “We were deeply depressed and deeply furious as it became clear that one of the worst human beings on the planet was going back to the White House, but we are still breathing and know that we will in the days ahead begin to formulate plans and strategies—and not just for heading north across the Canadian border.”

Picking up on that last point, it may well be that many decent Americans might just up and off across the border; Canada had better prepare for an avalanche of applications for residence permits.

And not just from Americans; in, for example, the American university system alone there are many many Africans employed in high positions (Professors and such-like), who must now face the fact they are living in a country whose leader despises them and who may opt to get out.

In her email written to her friends, once the news from hell had been confirmed, Katt quoted a piece by Rebecca Solnit, one of the most exciting writers at work in the USA today (readers may remember that I have previously reviewed two of her books for this newspaper, Whose Story is This? and Recollections of My Non-Existence).

Now Solnit is a feminist and at the heart of her work is a dissection of the way women have been marginalised in the USA (let’s remember that Kamala Harris, the Presidential candidate who lost to Trump, did so partly because so many American males could not bring themselves to vote for a woman.

I am thinking of the kind of male who invaded the White House when it was announced Trump had lost the 2020 election, bare-chested and wearing cow-horn helmets on their numbskull heads).

Solnit has this to say on our response to the Trump victory: “They want you to feel powerless and to surrender and to let them trample everything and you are not going to let them.

You are not giving up and neither am I. The fact that we cannot save everything does not mean we cannot save anything and everything we can save is worth saving.

You may need to grieve or scream or take time off, but you have a role no matter what, and right now good friends and good principles are worth gathering in.

Remember what you love. Remember what loves you. Remember in this tide of hate what love is.” And then: “A lot of us are going to resist by building solidarity and sanctuary.”

What is so morale-boosting about Solnit’s piece is not just her vision but also her command of language.
Her writing is so crisp and elegant. Language comes at us at its best, of course, in literature, and when I heard that the Dump was on the move back to the White House, I immediately recalled one of the most startling poems in the English language, “The Second Coming” by the Irish poet WB Yeats.

I’ll kick off with that next week.

To be concluded

Chris Dunton

Continue Reading
Advertisement

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending