Parody Msimelelo @Msijaman - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

2 days ago

I'm not defending apartheid. I'm saying it's interesting that some policies people support today—whether on borders, movement controls, immigration controls, or separation of communities—resemble ideas that were once associated with apartheid-era governance. If those ideas were wrong then, why do they become acceptable when presented in a different context? It's strange to me that many of the same people who strongly oppose apartheid-era laws are now supporting ideas that resemble some of those very policies. Take the pass laws for example. They were used to control movement and determine who could be where. Today, many people are calling for stricter controls on movement, documentation, and access. The context is different, but the principle of controlling who belongs where remains part of the conversation. Then there's the issue of separate development and the old homeland system such as Transkei and Ciskei. Apartheid's idea of dividing people into separate territories was heavily criticized, yet today there are growing calls for communities to isolate themselves, protect only their own interests, and draw stronger territorial boundaries. When someone points out the similarities, the response is usually, "We're talking about different things." The Group Areas Act was based on the idea that certain places belonged to certain groups. While living in Gauteng, I remember protests where people complained that South Africans from other provinces were coming there and taking jobs. At one point, someone even asked me why people leave the Eastern Cape for Gauteng. "Aren't there jobs in the Eastern Cape?" they asked. That question stuck with me because it sounded as if Gauteng belonged to certain people and others needed to justify their presence there. Yet we're all South Africans. Imagine if people from the coastal provinces started asking inland residents why they don't build their own beaches instead of "flooding" coastal towns every holiday season. We'd immediately see how ridiculous that sounds. South Africa belongs to all South Africans, not just those born in a particular province. The same applies to employment and BEE. BEE was, and still is, a good idea in principle because it sought to address historical inequalities. The problem is implementation. We cannot honestly say it has benefited everyone equally when many opportunities appear to be concentrated among politically connected individuals and groups. In South Africa, people say you're free to stay out of politics. Technically that's true. But if you're not involved in political networks, don't be surprised if many opportunities linked to empowerment policies pass you by. Those who thrive politically often seem to benefit the most. We're also told that politics should stay out of sport, yet the Minister of Sport is a politician. We've had countless conversations about developing talent and honoring legends like Lucas Radebe, but many of those discussions never seem to translate into meaningful action. I know some people will dismiss this argument as soon as I mention apartheid, while others will point to a few successful BEE stories. But highlighting exceptions doesn't erase broader concerns about unemployment, inequality, and access to opportunities. The uncomfortable truth is that unemployment and immigration remain some of the biggest political issues in the country. Decade after decade, they remain unresolved. Sometimes it feels as though these problems are more useful during election campaigns than they are as issues to be permanently solved. You don't have to agree with me. I'm simply asking for consistency. If we condemned certain principles when they were used under apartheid, we should be willing to examine those same principles honestly when they reappear in modern debates, even if they're being proposed for different reasons.

1

9

2

0

408

Parody Msimelelo

@Msijaman

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users