Students jolt us to face issue

What the students of the University Of Cape Town (UCT) have done this past week - mounting a protest that led to the removal of the statue of Cecil John Rhodes from their campus - opens up the subject of political statues, why we erect them and how society comes to choose the people to be embodied in bronze or stone.

Coming from a divided past and given that political statues represent an implicit political statement, there is no way our country was ever going to escape the contentiousness of statues. It is an indictment on society's leadership that students have had to force us to have a discourse on this potentially divisive issue.

Parliament, government and the department of arts and culture, in particular, should have long initiated a discussion on this subject. Ditto academics. I put emphasis on the department of arts and culture because it is the one that is supposed to lead us in the discourse of nationalism and the political aesthetics of our nation. There is very little literature out there on what South African statues tell and the politics of choosing symbols both historically and in contemporary South Africa.

Perhaps it is the potential to polarize society that has encouraged our "head-in-the-sand" approach to this matter. But the students have jolted us into confronting the subject. We may make light of their activism and scoff theirs as a frivolous cause. Of course, there are some who have opportunistically latched on to the students protest. But still, that does not detract from the fact that we must face the issue, debate it and find consensus. Postponing it will be burdening future generations with something we should have resolved.

I agree with the view that our political aesthetics as expressed by the statues that currently dominate our public squares is not fully representative. The question though is: do we make it representative by destroying existing statues or by embarking on an aggressive programme to reproduce symbols that will build a new heritage architecture? It would seem to me that the solution lies more with the latter. We need a new heritage architecture programme that is well funded, well thought out and will reflect the hitherto hidden heritage of our nation.

And I say so fully conscious that what may be a hero to one section of our society may be a villain to another. But even the statues of villains should be preserved for posterity if only to remind those who will come after us how not to do things. The question is where we preserve them. And here we must tread carefully. The last thing we want is for one section of our society being made to feel alienated or not part of the South African nation. That will set us a few decades ago in our effort to build a united nation.

I agree with the opinion proffered by Advocate George Bizos that the statues considered to be offensive should not be destroyed but kept in museums as reminders of history but, critically, as instruments of progress calling attention to actions, events and personalities that will encourage reflection and discourage a repeat of the past. A history forgotten or obliterated is likely to repeat itself.

Equally, I agree with the sentiment expressed by President Jacob Zuma that history is made of the good and the bad. For a full appreciation and understanding of history, one does not tear off from a history textbook those pages reflect the bad. We need a mature and nation-building approach to the matter of statues. Destroying and defacing them is not the way to go.

While this matter has been brought to the fore by the UCT students, we would be fooling ourselves if we do not read the undertones beneath their action. This is so much about offensive symbols as it is about the transformation of their university and indeed of society in general. We have been here before.

In 1976 students in Soweto took the streets to protest against being taught in Afrikaans. Some chose to see their action as being simply about Afrikaans while others scoffed at their action and saw it as a cause of no consequence. But we today know that it was far bigger than that. Unfortunately, some were fast asleep during the revolution and only asked after it had ended: what happened?

I do hope society, university authorities and the country's political leadership will read correctly the signals being sent by this emerging student activism lest we all wake up later and ask: what happened?