‘Apartheid Did Not Die' by Mandla J Radebe

TimesLIVE

2 days ago

ABOUT THE BOOK
More than three decades after the fall of apartheid, the spectre of its legacy continues to cast a long, divisive shadow over SA's democracy.
Apartheid Did Not Die is a powerful indictment of the persistent structures of racial power and economic inequality that continue to shape the nation.
Prof Mandla J Radebe confronts the unsettling truth that for many, the democratic era has not dismantled the architecture of apartheid, it has merely repainted it.
He interrogates the role of the media in shaping public consciousness and maintaining elite hegemony. Through explorations of the endurance of racial capitalism, and sharp media and political analysis, Apartheid Did Not Die challenges us to reckon with the unfinished business of justice and true liberation.
EXTRACT
A Cathartic Moment
Since the government's bold announcement that it would approach the ICJ under the Genocide Convention to address 'acts committed by Israel' in the ongoing Gaza siege, this principled move was met with widespread applause, especially within progressive circles. As survivors of apartheid, South Africans hold a unique perspective that enables us to recognise when similar systems of oppression and injustice are unfolding. Our lived experience instils a commitment to international solidarity, precisely because it was acts of generosity from people we did not even know who played a crucial role in contributing to our freedom. Therefore, this continues to drive us to stand against any form of injustice to ensure that others do not endure similar traumatic experiences.
The government's case was rooted in deep concerns over the 'plight of civilians caught in the present Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip', highlighting the indiscriminate use of force and the forcible displacement of inhabitants. The government argued that these actions constituted international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war crimes. Moreover, the government presented evidence suggesting that acts meeting the threshold of genocide or related crimes, as defined under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, were occurring in Gaza.
Granted, South Africa is a country of people with diverse perspectives, including those who support Israel. In fact, most organisations representing sections of the white settler community not only opposed the decision but were appalled by it. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) criticised the government's decision to take Israel to the ICJ, accusing it of failing 'to play a role in engaging with both sides' of the conflict. The SAJBD said it 'mourns the loss of innocent life on both sides of the current Israel–Hamas conflict'. The use of the words 'war' and 'conflict' in reference to Gaza obscure a number of historical facts, beyond the reality that this is a one-sided annihilation of the Palestinians by Israel. The number of dead Palestinians, predominantly women and children, speaks volumes. Nonetheless, the SAJBD holds the view that the government is biased in its approach, stating, 'We urged our government to play a role in talking to both sides, and in using their influence to ensure Hamas releases the hostages, following their deadly raid on Israel on 7 October'.
Similarly, the official opposition, the DA, criticised the government's decision, contending that South Africa was 'taking sides' and had 'undermined its ability to serve as a neutral mediator'. Its spokesperson, Emma Powell, accused the ANC government of inconsistency, stating, 'It is, however, a great pity that the South African government has consistently ignored gross human rights violations on our own doorsteps, including in Sudan and Zimbabwe'. This retort, often echoed by those who covertly support the atrocities in Gaza, accuses SA of selectively addressing conflicts far removed and affecting non-Africans, while allegedly ignoring crises on the continent.
Some 'black' organisations, such as the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), invoke biblical justifications for their support of Israel. ACDP leader Kenneth Meshoe argued that, instead of taking Israel to the UN's top court for genocide crimes, SA could have mediated to convince Hamas to release the hostages captured during the October 7 raid in Israel. Meshoe also questioned the validity of the government's case, claiming, 'We also do not believe that the South African government will be able to prove that Israel has the necessary genocidal intent against the Palestinian people as required by the genocide convention'. The opposition by the ACDP and other obscure black organisations to the government's decision to take Israel to the ICJ reflects a painful reality that, in every society and struggle, there are collaborators, those whose minds have been so deeply infiltrated by the enemy's propaganda that they often adopt positions more radical than the oppressor's. This phenomenon speaks to the psychological scars of colonialism, as Fanon articulated. South African poet Mzwakhe Mbuli captures this sentiment poignantly in one of his stanzas: 'ukulimala kwengqondo, ukulimala komuntu' (a psychological wound can be as devastating as physical harm).
Of course, the likes of Meshoe were proven wrong by the court, which found Israel responsible for, inter alia, racial segregation and apartheid against the Palestinians. The ruling detailed a long list of abuses and violations of international law that Israeli authorities had committed. It declared Israel's occupation illegal and established clear standards for Israel to provide reparations to the Palestinian people. Indeed, the ICJ rulings align with extensive evidence of grave crimes committed by Israeli authorities, as presented by the UN and numerous experts. In a landmark case brought by SA, the ICJ issued three binding rulings mandating urgent measures that Israeli authorities must implement to prevent the risk of genocide in their military operations in Gaza.
Let us now return to why I regard this as a cathartic moment for many ordinary South Africans such as myself. For those of us who experienced apartheid first-hand and continue to live with its physical and emotional scars and its permanent legacies, this case symbolises a reckoning with injustice on a global stage. It is a moment of collective validation for the oppressed, and an opportunity to demand accountability in the face of systemic violence. For many, it rekindles the hope that their own struggles and sacrifices have not been forgotten, and that the fight against oppression, wherever it exists, remains a universal imperative.
The ICJ proceedings provided a platform for marginalised voices to articulate the profound impact of apartheid oppression, with the Gaza genocide serving as the focal point. The Israeli government and the apartheid regime were and are, two brutal forces, alike in indignity. Much like the TRC, which served as a vital space to confront the architects of apartheid, such as the ruthless operatives of the Vlakplaas unit, the ICJ hearings resonated deeply with those who suffered under apartheid. For those who once endured such horrors in silence, the ICJ proceedings were not solely about justice for Palestinians, but they also symbolised an opportunity for personal and collective healing, connecting past and present struggles against systemic oppression.
The TRC, which was established to uncover the truth, and allow victims to recount their harrowing experiences, and confront those responsible for grave injustices. It served as a symbolic arena where the silenced could reclaim their narratives, shedding light on the depths of their suffering. The scars of apartheid, deeply etched in the national psyche, found recognition through the TRC's crucial role in fostering healing and reconciliation. The testimonies shared during the process transcended personal anguish, and in the process, they became testaments to resilience and the indomitable spirit of those who were oppressed. These stories brought to light both the pain of the past and the courage of individuals committed to justice and equality.
The proceedings at the ICJ rekindled these memories, providing a rare and invaluable platform for the Palestinian voice to be heard on an international stage. The Palestinians' experiences of oppression and suffering were unveiled, laying bare, for the world to witness, the harsh realities they face every minute. t brought to bear the universal yearning for dignity and equality and how the Palestinians are resisting the shackles of oppression. Indeed, it is imperative to acknowledge that healing is an ongoing journey. While the TRC, for instance, marked a significant step towards reconciliation, it also revealed the complexities of forgiveness in the immediate aftermath of deep-seated trauma. Critical conversations about justice were ignited, just like the accountability and the collective responsibility to build a more equitable and inclusive future.
While celebrating SA's principled stance, we must honour the strength and courage of those who spoke out, even as we confront the ongoing challenges in the pursuit of genuine justice. The ICJ case serves as a reminder that the journey towards truth and reconciliation demands commitment and vigilance; this is the basis upon which a nation liberated from the shadows of its painful past may be constructed. This cannot happen in isolation but requires dedication to international solidarity premised on a genuine commitment to global peace and justice. This is the only way to guarantee that such atrocities do not recur. However, if we fail to counter imperialism, the driving force behind racial capitalism and other injustices, our efforts are unlikely to succeed. It is this very commitment that underpins SA's unwavering support for the Palestinian struggle.