logo
Healing the wounds of the July 2021 unrest: a path to unity and reconciliation

Healing the wounds of the July 2021 unrest: a path to unity and reconciliation

IOL News11-07-2025
In a bid to promote peace, cartoonist Nanda Soobben painted this peace mural in Chatsworth after the July unrest to promote social cohesion.
On the 4th anniversary of the July 2021 unrest, RAVI PILLAY explores the ongoing challenges of nation building in South Africa, the need for unity, and the importance of the National Dialogue in healing our communities
'TOWARDS Nation Building' is the title of a comprehensive submission that some of us made to the Human Rights Commission at its national investigative hearing into the July 2021 unrest.
As we approach the 4th anniversary of this most traumatic period in our democratic era, we have to confront the reality that we have not moved forward towards nation building. At best we have treaded water.
Many will argue that we have regressed. I remain convinced that there is an overwhelming body of goodwill among the majority of our people who are ready to support any credible effort towards unity and nation building.
Yet there remains this wound that has not healed and which without care, may fester. Some 350 people died. Their families need closure.
The issues are complex and difficult. I am inspired by the potential of the National Dialogue. It is the first opportunity since the Freedom Charter in 1955 (it is the 70th anniversary this year) and the adoption of our Constitution in 1996, for a grass-roots, people driven conversation and a new, substantially national, consensus and direction.
The July 2021 unrest could be one important part of the conversation, especially in our province of KwaZulu-Natal.
Our submission to the HRC was comprehensive. It is useful to recall a few salient aspects:
We remain deeply committed to the building of a united, non-racial society and entrenching the values espoused in our Constitution - 'heal the divisions of our past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights'.
We cannot avoid the characterisation of the unrest as an "attempted insurrection" which included: incitement primarily through an intensive social media campaign; mobilisation by highlighting grievances relating to poverty and unemployment; incentivising by using money to instigate as documented; and organising through the use of "advance teams" who would break into identified targets creating access for others to loot, and then setting fire to property in a manner designed to cause maximum damage.
One security expert suggested that the organized objective was to provoke an over-reaction from security forces leading to mass deaths which in turn lead to a mass uprising leading to a collapse of the state.
The economic damage was devastating and calculated at R50 billion.
Not many knew that we were 48 hours away from a full-blown food crisis. Fuel trucks were unable to refuel petrol stations. Delivery trucks were unable to reach retailers – the shelves were empty.
It took an extraordinary effort to restore fuel supplies, secure the roads and replenish supplies in time.
The submission also reflects on corruption and the culture of impunity that had developed leading to the type of complete lawlessness that was witnessed.
The role of the police, the intelligence services and lack of coordination until the SANDF was deployed, and delayed at that.
At least 350 people died. Initially all of these deaths were attributed to the Phoenix area until it was clarified that the Phoenix mortuary served a very large area beyond Phoenix. It was finally assessed that 36 deaths occurred in the Phoenix area. But the damage had been done.
Phoenix became the focus area and it was alleged that the deaths were racially motivated. The narrative held. Rational analysis became impossible. Others asked: did the killings cause the unrest? Or, did the unrest cause the killings? We must refuse to be stereotyped whichever community we may hail from.
The Human Rights Commission subsequently produced a report that made various credible findings and recommendations and does not use the highly provocative term 'massacre'.
The Commission for Religious and Linguistic Rights produced a 'report' that consisted of some 21 slides. Despite repeated requests it was only some two weeks ago on June 25, 2025, that we were provided with a full report. Notwithstanding very grave reservations, patriotic South Africans must be committed to working with our chapter 9 institutions and all stakeholders to implement the many progressive recommendations that have emerged. However, progress has been slow. Prosecutions have been few and far between. The main instigators still escape accountability.
This has to be challenged.
It is very important to record that the submission to the HRC includes inter alia the following: '. . . we too are outraged and appalled by the brutality of the violence that marked several of the incidents. We condemn the perpetrators who carried out these vicious acts, without qualification …'
Our humanity demands that we recognise those innocent people who were victims of the violence and that there is pain and suffering which endures until today. There are individuals and families who need closure.
The Human Rights Commission and Commission for Religious and Linguistic Rights are jointly embarking on a process that seeks to bring this closure.
It is a process that raises many difficult issues but the intention is in good faith and seeks to bring communities together and promote reconciliation.
However not enough groundwork has been done.
The commissions understand this and therefore resolved that on this anniversary they cannot go beyond launching the process.
We await announcements in this regard. While experts in these social processes will be essential, it is clear that this initiative cannot succeed without the active participation of community organizations and leaders. Religious leaders in particular have a special role to play.
Finally, as we reflect on this 4th anniversary, and in anticipation of the National Dialogue, we must draw a distinction between the very important soft issues of humanity or Ubuntu, religion, culture, language and sport on the one hand, and economic inequality on the other.
We must resist those who seek to infuse a toxic overlap between race and inequality. An economic growth and development vision that is fair and just for all becomes fundamental to a sustainable future for all South Africans.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

South African Human Rights Commission investigating McKenzie
South African Human Rights Commission investigating McKenzie

eNCA

time29 minutes ago

  • eNCA

South African Human Rights Commission investigating McKenzie

JOHANNESBURG - The South African Human Rights Commission is investigating past social media posts by Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie. The posts, dated between 2011 and 2017, resurfaced last week, prompting complaints from political parties and individuals. The Commission says the remarks appear to violate the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. It has written to the minister, and it may take the matter to the Equality Court. The SAHRC says freedom of expression does not protect hate speech, and calls on all South Africans to respect the values of the Constitution.

The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity
The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity

Daily Maverick

timean hour ago

  • Daily Maverick

The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity

The National Dialogue is dead, long live a national dialogue, or something to that effect… where or how to start such a dialogue, the lower-case one, is the next big task. We know that we have to talk, but we can't seem to agree on what to talk about, or whom to include in such talks. It's all rather bewildering. As mentioned previously, opposition to President Cyril Ramaphosa's initiative is, 'in one sense, a good thing', because it meant that people were engaging with the proposal, and that 'a measure of distrust of the government is always necessary'. In among it all lies the way forward, or rather 'a way forward'. For what it's worth, I remain convinced that the Diagnostic Overview of the National Development Plan is a good place to start, with the necessary updates, inclusions and adaptations. Opposition to Ramaphosa's National Dialogue has moved between positions of outright contempt, to self-dramatisation, bad faith and inauthenticity. Then again, it really was a stretch to imagine the Democratic Alliance, MK party and the EFF supporting anything put forward by Ramaphosa; they were, as they usually are, 'a little too precise, a little too rapid' in their response to the National Dialogue. My colleague Stephen Grootes used the term performative, which is a useful way of describing their responses. These political groups are, at least, consistent and have always presented themselves as indispensable for South Africa's future. Taking them at their word, they are the indispensables. The latest withdrawals will probably mean that the National Dialogue, in its current conception, will not start. The latest group of refuseniks who were meant to participate in preparations toward the National Dialogue have accused the president's initiative of rushing, of 'cutting corners' and of 'centralising power'. The latter is difficult to fathom because it seems to me that opening up a discussion on the country's future is actually about decentralising influence and power and about bringing together political and civil society. Never mind. Leading the most recent resistance, and what may well torpedo the president's initiative, are the Thabo Mbeki Foundation and the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, the Steve Biko Foundation, the Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, the FW de Klerk Foundation, the Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, and the Strategic Dialogue Group. At first glance, the new resistance projects an image of loyal criticism in the sense that they believe, for sure, that something ought to be done, and that they would like to be part of that something if the necessary changes and improvements are made. Closer scrutiny suggests that there may be a loss of the spirit of compromise with which Mbeki and the late former president FW de Klerk (and Ramaphosa, in particular) were familiar. It's all rather confusing. It's a bit like trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. We have to wait and see what emerges. What I want to discuss is the idea of compromise, and of bringing the opposition into the room. The Mbeki-De Klerk non-compromise A long time ago, during the latter stages of the Codesa negotiations, I had a chat with former president De Klerk about compromise in politics and about its gains and losses. Regardless of what I (many of us) thought at the time, De Klerk believed he had made the greatest compromises, first, with his 'own people' about ending legal apartheid, and then with the ANC in the final months of the negotiations process. The conversation ended on a sobering note. 'You don't have to tell me about making compromises,' De Klerk said. And so I was surprised that the foundations of former presidents Mbeki and De Klerk were among the refuseniks. They would at least understand that Ramaphosa's initiative was somewhat of an acknowledgement that the ANC-led state had lost the power and will to steer South Africa, and that it sought to forge stronger alliances with civil society. All the more surprising was that the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation withdrew. They would represent civil society with a little less political baggage than the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations. Then again, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation probably endorsed the (political) compromises that created the current Government of National Unity. The objective of that compromise, it seemed to me, was by and large to maintain the political and economic status quo that took shape after 1994. To the extent, then, that the envisaged National Dialogue included the main parties that gave us concepts like ' sufficient consensus ' in the early 1990s, one may be forgiven for believing that the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations would, at least, enter into preliminary discussions on the National Dialogue. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas Let's try to think harder about negotiations, bargaining and more honest discussions among political and social society. Bringing together political society and social society — all interested parties — into a room to discuss a way forward does not always guarantee optimal outcomes. As the tired idiom has it: turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Let's try a more sophisticated example, grounded in reality (turkeys don't actually vote, nè). Imagine a village, somewhere in Central America, that is plagued by crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse. A leader of the village suggests a 'dialogue' about crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse, and invites everyone into a hall to discuss what is wrong and what ought to be done about it. One suggestion is that the local municipality installs high-mast lighting as a way to curb criminal activities at night. Now, among the invited, for the sake of democracy, representation and inclusivity, are criminals who have an interest in darkness. Criminals thrive on operating in the dark. The initiative to install high-mass lighting fails because there is no consensus. The criminal elements on the guest list of civil society vote against high-mast lighting. It is at this point that the local leaders can simply go ahead and authorise installation of the high-mass lighting by some decree or authoritarianism, or on the basis of 'sufficient consensus', or by asking the criminals to vote against their interests. What will it be? What should it be? I just don't know. I return to the befuddlement of a political superposition — trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. Nobody knows what will happen next. I don't know what will happen next. But because I don't know what will happen next, does not mean everyone else does not know what will happen next. Maybe somebody does know what will happen next. I think I mangled a line from the film The Milagro Beanfield War, but it works, kinda. For now, we remain in stasis — what has become South Africa's original position. DM

SAHRC launches investigation into Minister Gayton McKenzie over alleged racist and xenophobic utterances
SAHRC launches investigation into Minister Gayton McKenzie over alleged racist and xenophobic utterances

IOL News

timean hour ago

  • IOL News

SAHRC launches investigation into Minister Gayton McKenzie over alleged racist and xenophobic utterances

Gayton McKenzie has come under fire for comments made during a recent live and X posts, shared years ago Image: Itumeleng English/ Independent Newspapers The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has initiated an investigation into Minister Gayton McKenzie over offensive posts on his X account and alleged xenophobic utterances. The controversy stems from remarks made in a live video and social media posts dating back as far as 2011. The Commission said it became aware of the resurfaced posts on August 9 2025, and has received multiple complaints from various political parties and individuals, prompting the commission to take action. Following an initial assessment, the SAHRC believes that McKenzie's utterances are "prima facie violations of the provisions of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (Equality Act), 2000". An allegation letter has been dispatched to McKenzie. The Commission stated that its next steps might include instituting proceedings in the relevant Equality Court, as per the SAHRC Act of 2013 and the Equality Act. The SAHRC emphasised that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, reminding the public that hate speech is explicitly prohibited by both the Equality Act and the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act, 2023. The Commission reiterated that McKenzie's conduct is expected to "conform to ethical standards that is becoming of a Minister and a member of Parliament". The SAHRC also called on all citizens to uphold the Constitution's fundamental principles, including human dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The outcry against McKenzie, who serves as the Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, began with his use of a racial slur (the 'K-word') during a live video. This incident occurred as he discussed actions taken by the Patriotic Alliance against the hosts of the "Open Chats Podcast," who had themselves made disparaging and racist remarks about the coloured community. McKenzie had previously urged his party to take legal action against these podcasters, stating that if coloured people had made similar remarks about other races, it would have been front-page news. Following the live video controversy, older social media posts by McKenzie, dating between 2011 and 2017, resurfaced. These tweets reportedly contained "apartheid-era racial slurs directed at black South Africans" and criticised the term 'Black Diamond' using racially charged language deemed "reprehensible". McKenzie has denied being a racist, claiming that the entire controversy is a "politically motivated campaign orchestrated by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and social media influencers". He stated: "This whole campaign to find something racist I ever said is hilarious because you have now gone 13 years back and can't bring out one racist thing I ever said". While denying racist intent, McKenzie has admitted to posting "insensitive, stupid and hurtful" remarks a decade or two ago, acknowledging, "I was a troll [and] stupid. I cringe when seeing them and I am truly sorry for that". He cited his background, stating, "My mother was black and I have children with a black woman. I fought my whole life for the same treatment between black and Coloured people because we fought the same struggle". McKenzie has stated his willingness to subject himself to an investigation, reiterating, "I can never be guilty of racism, try some other take down but never racism". IOL

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store