Ramaphosa honours Dr. Tshenuwani Farisani: A tireless freedom fighter
Image: ANC/X
President Cyril Ramaphosa has paid a heartfelt tribute to the late Dr Tshenuwani Farisani, hailing him as an extraordinary leader, revered cleric, and tireless anti-apartheid activist whose legacy will endure for generations.
Speaking at the official funeral held at the University of Venda in Thohoyandou, Limpopo, Ramaphosa joined dignitaries, mourners, and family members in celebrating the life and impact of the revered Lutheran minister.
Dr Farisani, a prominent figure in the Black Consciousness Movement, dedicated his life to justice and liberation, enduring persecution for his convictions.
'When he was released and went into exile to the United States, he could have easily put the entire experience behind him and led a quiet life,' Ramaphosa said.
His unwavering commitment to freedom led him to serve in Parliament and, later, as Speaker of the Limpopo Provincial Legislature in 2004.
He passed away at the age of 76 following an undisclosed illness. His contribution to South Africa's democracy and spiritual life remains indelible.
Additionally, Ramaphosa said Farisani campaigned against the Apartheid regime abroad.
'When Venda was proclaimed a so-called independent homeland by the Apartheid regime, he was one of those who were outspoken in his opposition. Even when this brought him into conflict with church leaders in his circuit. His activism continued into the democratic era,' he said.
Meanwhile, before Ramaphosa could deliver his eulogy, Limpopo Premier Dr. Phophi Ramathuba honoured the memory of the late liberation hero, Farisani, describing him as a fatherly figure and a pillar of the community.
Ramathuba reflected on his lifelong solidarity with the poor, noting that he not only served them but chose to live among them, embodying the values he preached.
Farisani, she added, was a principled and steadfast member of the South African Communist Party (SACP), and his legacy as a spiritual leader and freedom fighter will continue to inspire generations.
[email protected]
IOL Politics
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
38 minutes ago
- The Star
Skewed editorial on Marikana Massacre
I refer to your leading article on the thirteenth anniversary of the Marikana Massacre ('Ramaphosa must face Marikana widows', The Star, August 19). No sane person would deny that the police reaction on that day was disproportionately lethal, and that some form of compensation should have been made by the platinum mining industry. What has to be disputed is how the editorial in question has been framed. In recent years, there has been a tendency among journalists to whitewash the events that led to the massacre. Those of us who read about this tragedy thirteen years ago, reported by some respected journalists and editors, will recall that the police were provoked, and that the miners were not innocent protesters. Visuals that were published then showed the miners carrying crude weapons that could inflict death. There were several people, including a police officer or two, killed in the days preceding the massacre. There were rituals performed on the koppie, probably some form of witchcraft to make the miners invulnerable in the event of a confrontation. None of this is even hinted at in the editorial, which portrays the miners as hapless victims. Even the Farlam Commission was wary of finding anyone guilty. Those not familiar with the events of August 16, 2012, would not have been served well by the skewed version in The Star's editorial. They would be better served by Wikipedia, even though academia may thumb its nose at this online 'encyclopedia'. Harry Sewlall Parkmore
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
If BEE goes, how do we address racialised inequality?
The past few months have seen an unprecedented attack on Black Economic Empowerment. Strangely, the voices that you would expect to defend it have been oddly muted. If we accept that BEE has too many problems to work properly, it is time for a proper national debate on what could replace it. As predicted several months ago, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is now under intense fire. This is partly because the ANC has been dramatically weakened, partly because the DA is now in government, and partly because of the Trump administration's attacks on it. Last week, even The Economist opined that it was time for our country to stop BEE. On Tuesday, Deputy President Paul Mashatile said in an answer to a parliamentary question that BEE was 'not discriminatory'. While he was trying to defend BEE, he clearly missed the point. BEE is absolutely discriminatory. That is why we have it. To reduce our racialised inequality. But, in a comment by Professor William Gumede that has been widely quoted, BEE has cost around R1-trillion and yet most black people have not benefited from it in any substantive way (this is likely to be hugely contested). BEE is intensely controversial. Not just because a small group of people have been made rich, but because of what it is: A deliberate attempt to empower one group of people at the expense of another group. No matter the moral legitimacy of such an aim, in any society, to take from one group to give to another leads to huge arguments. This is one of the reasons tax policy can be hugely controversial. The cost of scrapping As a starting point, it may be important to ask: if there is no BEE and no other measure of race-based redress, what would happen? The economy would probably grow a little more quickly than it is now. Companies could simply scrap all the measures they take to qualify for BEE points. This might make them, and their owners, richer. But there would be a huge cost. For example, some of the big banks insure the geysers of people they grant mortgages to (this is to protect the value of the property they are lending money against). As a BEE measure, they then use a long list of black-owned suppliers to repair those geysers if they break down. The big banks would probably find it much more efficient to use one big company to fix all these geysers. These suppliers, usually the first in their families to own a small business, would lose out dramatically. Most would probably have to close. The consequence of this is that all these people, and their extended families, who they support, would lose faith in the democratic project. This would be just one example of how inequality, both racialised inequality and general inequality, would be re-entrenched. That would lead to greater demands for political and economic change, and perhaps, more calls for some kind of radical, or even revolutionary change. The impact test The tools that the state has to really make a change for one group, but not for another, are essentially quite limited. And each tool would have to satisfy certain tests. The first is, would it work? In other words, does the policy really make a substantive difference for a large number of people? This is the test that BEE arguably fails. Another test is whether such a tool would be both legitimate and fair. Legitimacy is absolutely vital. It means you essentially have to convince white people that they must be treated differently from black people. It seems unlikely that even Siya Kolisi and Eben Etzebeth could convince most white people to accept this. There are alternatives to BEE, all of which have serious problems. Government could decide to radically change the tax system and essentially try to tax white people more than black people. One of the main arguments against that, apart from the fact that it would lead to intense debates about racial designations, is that there are obvious examples of some white people who were born into poorer homes than some black people. That would fail the fairness test. There could be other strategies. Government could decide that our geography, still defined by apartheid in so many ways, provides a proxy for race. Thus, as a deliberate strategy, the Basic Education Department could decide to spend more money per child in rural and township schools than on children in suburban schools. While this might seem unfair, the argument could be that communities in suburbs can just increase the contribution they already make to the education of their children (through what are often called 'Governing Body Teachers' – teachers paid by the parents, not government). Although that would be staggeringly unfair to black parents who have made huge sacrifices to get their children into these schools, and to keep them there. There are other problems, too. At least one would be that we would not know whether it had been effective for a full generation. Which might defeat the purpose, which is to show that there is a measure of race-based redress that actually works. From BEE to BIG? There are other ways to look at this problem. They could be controversial in themselves. It might be seen as legitimate by the vast majority of voters to remove the idea of race-based redress in favour of a different measure to help improve the lives of millions of the poorest people in our country. So, for example, BEE could be removed at the same time a substantive Basic Income Grant (BIG) is introduced. In other words, there would be a deal (sort of). Businesses would no longer have to comply with BEE, which would allow them to be more efficient and make more profit. Those profits would, in turn, help to fund a BIG that would make a real difference to the lives of millions of people. While there appears to be no public polling on this, it might be worth asking if the millions of people who receive the R370/month Social Relief of Distress Grant would prefer that money in their pockets to retaining the current model of BEE. Considering that these people clearly need more help than most of those who currently benefit from BEE, there may be a compelling moral argument in this direction. But that might be creating a false binary. And it would not satisfy the demand for race-based redress, although it would help to reduce inequality. The attacks on BEE will not stop. But the intensity of our inequality, as racialised as it still is, demands measures to address it. A window is now opening for a proper debate on what might be more effective. It's vital that we grab it. DM
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Skewed editorial on Marikana Massacre
In recent years, there has been a tendency among journalists to whitewash the events that led to the massacre, according to the writer. I refer to your leading article on the thirteenth anniversary of the Marikana Massacre ('Ramaphosa must face Marikana widows', The Star, August 19). No sane person would deny that the police reaction on that day was disproportionately lethal, and that some form of compensation should have been made by the platinum mining industry. What has to be disputed is how the editorial in question has been framed. In recent years, there has been a tendency among journalists to whitewash the events that led to the massacre. Those of us who read about this tragedy thirteen years ago, reported by some respected journalists and editors, will recall that the police were provoked, and that the miners were not innocent protesters. Visuals that were published then showed the miners carrying crude weapons that could inflict death. There were several people, including a police officer or two, killed in the days preceding the massacre. There were rituals performed on the koppie, probably some form of witchcraft to make the miners invulnerable in the event of a confrontation. None of this is even hinted at in the editorial, which portrays the miners as hapless victims. Even the Farlam Commission was wary of finding anyone guilty. Those not familiar with the events of August 16, 2012, would not have been served well by the skewed version in The Star's editorial. They would be better served by Wikipedia, even though academia may thumb its nose at this online 'encyclopedia'. Harry Sewlall Parkmore
