Time for the Youth to Rediscover Their Militancy and Voices
Edwin Naidu | Published 3 hours ago
Edwin Naidu
South Africa observes June 16 on Monday, the day when youth revolted against Afrikaans as a compulsory school subject. Three decades into democracy, Afrikaans is entrenched as one of the country's official languages, almost five decades after the fight against it.
Ironically, Afrikaners remain in control of the economy, education, and media, with a significant presence in most learning institutions and the country's major media houses, including Media24 and MultiChoice (currently being sold to a French company).
Through fake news about a genocide which does not exist, Afrikaners also enjoy the remaining ear that snipers missed off US President Donald Trump. So far, 49 people deemed failed car guards and their ilk on social media platforms have been given asylum based on a phoney war against Afrikaners.
The war is in the racist minds, propagated by the likes of AfriForum, which seems emboldened after the ANC's 2024 knock at the polls, resulting in a Government of National Unity. So much for Jacob Zuma's once boastful quip that the ANC would rule until Jesus comes.
Of course, there's a greater chance of the ANC being out of power before Jesus comes in the next election than the NPA's ineffective Shamilla Batohi bringing in the Guptas to account for the millions they obtained under Zuma. However, the man from Nkandla appears to have amnesia about state capture.
Under the presidencies of Mandela, Mbeki, Mothlante, Zuma, and now Cyril Ramaphosa, subsequent governments have adopted a pro-poor stance while enriching themselves, the party and friends. A new black middle class has emerged under democracy, along with a black elite, some of whom are now close to the ruling party.
A story circulates that the ANC, bereft of leadership and lacking ideas, wants Patrice Motsepe to bankroll the party back into power. Whether or not it's true, it's another sign of a party in decline. Since the Mandela euphoria over democracy, everything hinges on whether the country is keeping its promise of a better life for all.
Another burning question is whether political greed is failing the youth? Ditto: women? Ditto: Heritage: Ditto: the Constitution? The conduct of politicians hardly inspires confidence. While South Africans remain mired in poverty, politicians in the GNU used R200 million of taxpayer money on expensive overseas travels. High-flier Deputy President Paul Mashatile alone spent more than R2 million on his travels. One wonders if he is making up for lost time, having joined the gravy train late.
The government established Sector Education and Training Authorities to equip young people with the skills needed to address chronic unemployment. Unfortunately, there is no narrative about the success of SETAs.
Under the former Minister, Dr Blade Nzimande, SETAs were filled with boards comprising comrades from the Struggle, whose disastrous impact has hindered skills training but enriched many through unscrupulous means, without facing the consequences. Half of the country's 21 SETAs previously received adverse audits from the Auditor-General when Nzimande was in charge.
Most alarming, however, is that the SETAs were meant to transform the fortunes of the country's youth. Instead, it enriched those running SETAs and their associates.
His successor, Dr Nobuhle Nkabane, a former deputy under Gwede Mantashe, angered political rivals when she appointed the son of her former boss as a SETA Chair before protests forced her to withdraw the decision. She claimed an advisory board helped her make the choice, but in an age of transparency, she showed none, resulting in the president putting pressure on the gum-chewing Minister to do the right thing.
Politics is about serving the citizens of South Africa, not the party and friends. Politicians must put the people first. However, Nkabane undermines citizens by having a non-existent advisory board where a real board of experts could have helped ensure that South Africa's youth finally benefit from the skills revolution.
Former higher education ministers had advisors whose counsel they trusted. Nkabane must secure the help of many learned people available. Otherwise, the comrades will lead her astray.
Nkabane has highlighted the pressing issue of youth unemployment, insisting that SETAS must respond to the rapid pace of industry change.
However, suppose she needed reminding of the dire need to transform the fortunes of youth. In that case, it will not come from youth pensioners such as Julius Malema, Fikile Mbalula, or the recently put to pasture Floyd Shivambu.
The answer lies in the voices of young people who are fed up with political rhetoric, not just the noise from the trio of former youth league officials.
According to the latest Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) released by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) for Q1 2025, young people aged 15 to 34, around 10,3 million individuals, face the highest barriers to entering the workforce. Over the past ten years, youth unemployment has remained persistently high.
June 16 is seen as a day when the youth of 1976 stood courageously against apartheid. Their bravery pushed South Africa's journey towards democracy, and their legacy continues to inspire generations. Does it?
There's apathy. There are also pointless slogans that do not bring about significant change. Youth Month's theme is ' Skills for the Changing World – Empowering Youth for Meaningful Economic Participation. ' However, Statistics SA's reflection that nothing much has changed for youth over the past decade concerning employment is telling.
Like the youth of 1976, the generation of 2025 must reclaim the future with a youth reset, not await handouts from the fading liberators who only care about the party, themselves, and their friends. Youth must find their voice, not politicians, telling them what is good for them, while enabling the party or their friends to get rich or die trying to help South Africa's forgotten youth.
* Edwin Naidu is a communications professional and the founder of Higher Education Media Services.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
37 minutes ago
- IOL News
Trump's white South African resettlement plan and the global colour line
The narrative that white South Africans are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. Image: File/X THE arrival of over 3 000 white South Africans in the United States under President Donald Trump's fast-tracked refugee resettlement programme is a racial spectacle of historic proportions. Framed by Trump as a rescue mission from 'racial discrimination' and even 'genocide' in post-apartheid South Africa, the scheme repackages whiteness as victimhood while reasserting racial hierarchies through the veneer of humanitarian concern. Cheryl Harris's seminal concept of 'whiteness as property' is especially instructive here. This programme protects not the displaced, but the entitlements embedded in whiteness — land, social status, and the right to global mobility. These arrivals, facilitated under a controversial executive order, mark the first time in US history that white South Africans have been accepted en masse as refugees. The move has drawn intense scrutiny, with South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola dismissing the claims as 'unfounded and inflammatory'. He clarified that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had no involvement and had consistently found no basis for refugee status for white South Africans. 'The resettlement of South Africans under the guise of being 'refugees' is a political project to delegitimise our democracy,' Lamola asserted. The narrative that white South Africans — particularly Afrikaner farmers — are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. In February 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14152: Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, suspending non-essential aid. He cited South Africa's land reform policies and its support for Palestine at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as evidence of 'anti-white discrimination'. His language echoed apartheid-era rhetoric, framing land expropriation without compensation — a constitutional measure designed to redress historical injustice — as proof of racial targeting. This is not a story about humanitarian rescue. It is about the repackaging of privilege as persecution. Trump's administration, by reclassifying specific 'South African communities' for humanitarian parole, has revived the settler-native divide. As Mahmood Mamdani has noted, this manoeuvre casts descendants of apartheid's beneficiaries as 'refugees' and South Africa itself as the oppressor. Achille Mbembe's critique of global humanism is relevant here: the programme renders Black suffering invisible while privileging whiteness as a passport to refuge and legitimacy. Consequently, while Black refugees languish in camps, whiteness is deemed inherently worthy of protection, effectively enacting a form of apartheid within the asylum system itself. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing a 'well-founded fear of persecution.' Neither the Convention nor US law has ever interpreted this to include the loss of economic dominance or historical privilege. Fleeing land redistribution or reduced social status does not amount to persecution, especially when these changes are legally enacted by a democratic society seeking to correct historical wrongs. The parallels to earlier racial engineering are striking. In 1932, the US-sponsored *Carnegie Poor White Study* analysed the 'problem' of poor whites in South Africa. The initiative was not rooted in concern for poverty but in preserving white supremacy. The report warned that poor whites threatened the racial order and recommended state interventions to uplift them, while black South Africans were systematically excluded from similar support. This laid the foundation for apartheid's white welfare state and established a pattern of American intervention when white South Africans faced hardship, real or perceived. Trump's resettlement scheme is the 21st-century iteration of this pattern. White South Africans are framed not as beneficiaries of a violent racial order, but as victims of transformation, worthy of rescue. South Africa's Constitutional Court recently affirmed that acquiring foreign nationality — whether through refugee resettlement or otherwise — does not automatically strip someone of South African citizenship. In a landmark ruling, the Court struck down a section of the Citizenship Act that had quietly revoked citizenship without due process, calling the move irrational and unconstitutional. However, the case of these white South Africans is unique. Their refugee claims are based on false premises and a political agenda. South Africa may therefore have grounds to argue that accepting the US offer constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. The Constitutional Court's ruling on dual citizenship might not protect them in this politically charged context. Nowhere is the hypocrisy more glaring than in the American South. In the Mississippi Delta, six Black farmworkers filed a federal lawsuit in 2021 after being replaced by white South Africans brought in under the H-2A visa programme. The plaintiffs, many descended from enslaved people who built Southern agriculture, earned just $7.25 per hour — the federal minimum wage — while their white South African replacements were paid over $11. The lawsuit alleges that these Black workers were forced to train their replacements, who were then housed in better accommodations and elevated in status simply because they were white. Between 2011 and 2020, the number of South Africans on H-2A visas increased by 441%, making them the second-largest national group in the programme. The majority are white. The message is clear: in the racial calculus of US capitalism, white foreign labour is worth more than black American lives. Mexican seasonal workers, once the backbone of US agriculture, are also increasingly excluded — both by border walls and by labour policies that privilege whiteness over need. The result is a reshuffling of the global racial order, disguised as economic necessity. Trump's South African refugee programme is less about humanitarian concern and more about reaffirming a hierarchy of global suffering, where privilege continues to mask itself as victimhood. What we are witnessing is the reinforcement of a global colour line — one where whiteness retains its claim to mobility, safety, and opportunity, while blackness and brownness are rendered threats to be contained. The implications are profound: Refugee systems that prioritise whiteness over need. Economic visas favour white foreign farmers over Black citizens. Historical privilege is purposely mistaken for victimhood. This is not humanitarianism. It is neo-colonialism in motion. As the world watches Trump engineer the next stage of global apartheid, we must ask: What kind of refugee is it when only the privileged are welcome? When does skin colour ration citizenship, safety, and opportunity? If the notion of 'refuge' is to mean anything, it must centre justice, not historical comfort. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Macron urges renewed nuclear dialogue after Israel's Iran strikes
France's President Emmanuel Macron on Friday urged the US and Iran to resume nuclear talks following a wave of Israeli strikes against Iran. "Iran bears a heavy responsibility in the destabilisation of the whole region," he said after Western nations in recent days accused Tehran of deliberately escalating its nuclear programme, despite several rounds of US-Iran talks. "We call for the resumption of dialogue and the reaching of a deal." US President Donald Trump's Middle East pointman Steve Witkoff had been set to hold a sixth round of talks with Iran on Sunday in Oman. After Israel's deadly strikes early on Friday, Trump afterwards urged Iran to "make a deal, before there is nothing left", warning of "even more brutal" attacks to come. Macron, who earlier on Friday defended Israel's right to protect itself, said France could help in the case of an Iranian retaliation against Israel. "If Israel were to be attacked in retaliation by Iran, France, if in a position to do so, would take part in protection and defence operations," he said. Macron earlier in the day spoke by phone to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Elysee said, following a spike in diplomatic tensions. The French presidency said the phone conversation took place but did not provide details. Relations between Macron and Netanyahu have been strained in recent months over Israel's blockade of Gaza and France's plans to recognise a Palestinian state. - UN meeting postponed - France and Saudi Arabia have been planning to co-chair a UN conference on a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians next week in New York. But Macron said on Friday evening that meeting had been postponed. "While we have to postpone this conference for logistical and security reasons, it will take place as soon as possible," Macron said at a press conference. Israel pounded Iran in a series of air raids, striking 100 targets including nuclear and military sites, as well as killing the armed forces' chief of staff. In the aftermath of the strikes, Macron also spoke with leaders including Trump and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Earlier Friday, Macron said Israel had the right to defend itself and ensure its security but also called for de-escalation. "To avoid jeopardising the stability of the entire region, I call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to de-escalate," he said on X. Macron spoke after convening a meeting of the National Defence and Security Council. "All necessary steps will be taken to protect our nationals and our diplomatic and military missions in the region," Macron said. Iran has gradually broken away from its commitments under the nuclear deal it struck with world powers including the United States and France in 2015. The landmark deal provided Iran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its atomic programme, but it fell apart after the unilateral withdrawal of the United States during Trump's first term in 2018.
TimesLIVE
6 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
France's Macron says Iran responsible for destabilising region
French President Emmanuel Macron said on Friday that Iran bore a heavy responsibility for destabilisation of the Middle East and that it had pushed ahead with an unjustified nuclear programme, but he also urged restraint after Israel struck Iran. After a day of talks with regional and international leaders following Israeli strikes on Iranian military targets, notably its nuclear sites, Macron said Tehran was close to a 'critical point' in acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iran has consistently denied seeking one. 'Iran bears a very heavy responsibility for the destabilisation of the region,' Macron said. 'Iran is continuing to enrich uranium without any civilian justification and to levels that are very close to what is needed for a nuclear device.' While he urged restraint, Macron acknowledged that resuming diplomatic efforts, specifically US negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran that started two months ago, would be difficult. 'The situation has a risk of uncontrolled escalation,' he said, adding that Iran's activities threatened Europe. Warning of a possible impact on the global economy, Macron said France would defend Israel if it were attacked by Iran, as it had done in the past, but he ruled out taking part in any operation against Tehran. France and Israel, traditionally close allies, have had frosty relations in recent months with Macron increasingly critical of Israel's war in Gaza. Macron said France's support for Israel was not unconditional and that Paris had the right to disagree with some Israeli government decisions because 'they are sometimes against Israel's security interests'.
