Opinions
Share
Platform provides new opportunities for participatory democracy in arts and culture
Harriet Deacon
Political analyst Richard Calland (Mail & Guardian, July 24) described the current political environment in South Africa as providing opportunities for participatory democracy that had been increasingly lacking under former president Thabo Mbeki. He pointed to a high level glasnost in politics, a new conviviality and openness under President Jacob Zuma, in spite of accountability and implementation problems in the nether regions of government. At the same time, after the 2007 ANC national conference in Polokwane, there has been a new effort, spearheaded by party secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, to bring ANC policy closer to government.
What does this mean for the arts and culture sector? Arts and culture was very prominent in the anti-apartheid 1980s as a vehicle for participatory democracy, but today there is little serious debate about its role and value, apart from vague references to social cohesion and economic value. In the last 15 years, the sector has been affected by both neglect and heavy-handed interventionism, and it has suffered from poor co-ordination at a national level. There has been discontent, especially at provincial and local levels, about “service delivery” problems in museums, libraries and archives. At the same time, we have recently had a major national policy review process in the Department of Arts and Culture, we have large numbers of very dedicated and experienced people in the heritage and archives sector in the country, a strong network of institutions, and there is a new energy and excitement across the sector that can’t be ascribed simply to soccer fever.
How do we use the new political climate and our existing resources to address old problems and new challenges facing the sector? The idea behind the Archival Platform is to encourage the process of sharing ideas and information – as government officials, sector professionals, academics and the public – across the barriers of profession, geography, institutional travel allowances and telephone bills. We have already put out three newsletters since May, hosted a panel at the Southern African Historical Society conference on problems and possibilities in South African archives, enabled a number of productive connections between academics, heritage professionals, genealogists, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government, and nominated four people to the new National Archives Advisory Council.
The new website launched with this newsletter, coupled with Facebook and twitter, gives you an opportunity to benefit from this initiative, tell us what you think we should do or not do, and engage in your own brand of participatory democracy. Contact us with your news and ideas! Update your institutional information! Visit us on http://www.archivalplatform.org
Comments
Harriet Deacon and Sifiso Ndhlovu have been discussing this blog on email (see below) … What’s your view?
Sifiso says: Hi Harriet just been reading your newsletter etc just forwarded to us, I must say the first paragraph is a turn off….i mean what Calland says is too rich and when applying his argument to what is or what happened in the Arts and Culture sector it is obvious that Mbeki did not censor the sector but whatever the existing failures are self inflicted and cannot be blamed on Mbeki…it is like reading Gevisser’s book…I mean the book is quiet on larger projects - meaning- projects undertaken by democrats and these include the anti-colonial struggles which include anti-racism and non racism in a free South Africa….furthermore this list includes pan-Africanism as a project spearheaded by South African themselves with other democrats elsewhere joining our struggle for emancipation, this for me, was a civilising mission and its highest point was defined by the April 1994 election …etc…not only is Gevisser’s book quite on these important issues, it does not explain to us how such struggles unfolded historically, who were the champions, how is Mbeki connected to them, what role did he play in the anti-colonial struggle, what role did he play in promoting Pan Africanism etc but his book is organised around rumour mongering perpetuated by mostly the elites (black and white), anyway I am still trying to find time and space to write a review of the “acclaimed” book, hope will also be able to find a publisher of the review. The opening paragraph of your newsletter falls within this context as consciously set by Gevisser and O’Malley’s book on Mac Maharaj.
Harriet says: I agree with you that Mbeki was not a bad or censoring influence on arts and culture, but I was convinced by Gumede and the others above that he did tighten up political debate more generally in cabinet (you can show us in the review how wrong this is). That’s why I said what does the opening up of political spaces now mean for arts and culture? Maybe they are not opening up at all - is the notion of culture today becoming more restrictive in different ways?
Sifiso says: I still disagree with you, Gumede and others because when it come to such issues Gumede, Gevisser and other are peddling rumours because instead of providing us with correct references concerning their discussions with Cabinet members they decide to refer to unmentionable, secret and anonymous sources of information, I mean, such sources can be a figment of Gumede’s rich imagination and it is really difficult for us as historians to verify whatever is written about….the bottom line is for me, I do not see how Mbeki can bully Pallo Jordan when it comes to a debate inside and outside the cabinet…..that will never happen….the problem is with the practitioners in the arts and culture field, they are disorganised and they are the ones to be blamed for existing shambles and as a result I hold no brief for them…
Harriet says: I don’t think any one person, organisation or group can be blamed for the existing problems – and we all need to take responsibility. It’s probably a good idea to look at what has happened in the past to sketch out what we want from the future. I think there are two questions to be asked here: what have been the relative roles of the various Presidents (and the Ministers / bureaucracy) in relation to agenda-setting and implementation in arts and culture since 1994? Has there been too much interference and direction-setting, or too little strong leadership and action? What do we want from government, and what are the barriers to achieving that? And what has been the role of practitioners and others in the field? Has our internal disorganisation or lack of coordination resulted in a ‘shambles’? What do we want the field to look like in the future, and what are the barriers to achieving that?