HAS ACTIVISM BECOME SELECTIVE?
Speaking Truth to Power in South Africa's Cultural and Creative Industries
By Thami akaMbongo Manzana
South Africa's Cultural and Creative Industries were built on a proud tradition of speaking truth to power. During apartheid, artists, musicians, actors, poets, writers and cultural activists risked censorship, imprisonment, exile and even death to expose injustice. The arts were never simply entertainment, they became instruments of resistance, education and social change.
Three decades into democracy, an uncomfortable question confronts us.
Has speaking truth to power become selective?
Is our willingness to challenge those in authority now determined by who occupies political office, who appoints us, who funds us, or who sits around our boardroom tables?
These questions are not directed at one Minister alone. They are questions for the entire democratic era from the Government of National Unity of 1994 to the current Government of National Unity.
Since 1994, South Africa has had several Ministers responsible for Arts and Culture, and now Sport, Arts and Culture. The portfolio has been led by ministers from different political contexts, beginning under the Inkatha Freedom Party during the Government of National Unity, followed by African National Congress administrations, and today under the Patriotic Alliance within the current GNU.
Different ministers.
Different personalities.
Different political parties.
Yet many of the complaints from artists have remained remarkably familiar.
Funding delays.
Political interference.
Governance failures.
Lack of transparency.
Unequal access to opportunities.
Weak accountability.
Institutional instability.
If these problems have survived every administration, perhaps the challenge is not simply about individual ministers. Perhaps it is also about the culture we have developed within the sector itself.
Every Minister Faces Criticism Until Some People Benefit
Almost every Minister responsible for Arts and Culture has, at some point, been criticised by artists, practitioners, organisations or the media.
When projects failed...
When funding was delayed...
When appointments were questioned...
When institutions collapsed...
Voices emerged demanding accountability.
But something interesting often happens.
When individuals begin receiving funding...
When they are appointed to advisory panels...
When they become board members...
When they secure consultancy work...
When their organisations benefit...
The criticism often becomes quieter.
Sometimes it disappears completely.
Has speaking truth to power become conditional?
Image: Lionel Mtshali
National Arts Council
The National Arts Council has experienced repeated governance crises over the years.
Different Boards.
Different CEOs.
Different Ministers.
Different political administrations.
Yet concerns around governance, funding administration, transparency and institutional stability have continued to surface under successive governments.
The obvious question is:
If the problems continue regardless of who is Minister, why do many voices only become loud during certain administrations but silent during others?
Government Changes, The Questions Remain
Today Minister Gayton McKenzie leads the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture under the Patriotic Alliance.
Tomorrow another Minister will arrive.
Another political party may take over.
Another Director-General will be appointed.
Then what?
Will the same people suddenly rediscover their voices?
Or will they continue defending whoever currently holds power?
Power changes.
Cabinets change.
Political parties change.
But the Cultural and Creative Industries remain.
Where Have the Activists Gone?
There was a time when organised formations consistently challenged government decisions.
Professional associations.
Arts councils.
Advocacy groups.
Independent cultural organisations.
Sector forums.
Many became the conscience of the sector.
Today one must ask:
Where have those activist voices gone?
Have organisations become weaker?
Have leaders become exhausted after raising the same issues for thirty years?
Or has the politics of the stomach replaced the politics of principle?
These questions are uncomfortable precisely because they challenge all of us not only government.
The Politics of the Stomach
Across Africa, the phrase "politics of the stomach" describes a political culture where personal benefit takes precedence over public interest.
Could this be creeping into our Cultural and Creative Industries?
Do we remain silent because we fear losing funding?
Do we avoid criticism because our friends occupy influential positions?
Do board members remain silent because they hope for another term?
Do officials avoid difficult conversations because promotions may depend on political relationships?
Do beneficiaries become defenders of the system simply because they have benefited from it?
If our advocacy depends on whether we are eating from the table, then perhaps we are no longer speaking truth to power, we are negotiating with it.
Does Appointment Mean Silence?
Serving on a government board should never require abandoning independent thought.
Receiving public funding should never become a reward for political loyalty.
Working within government institutions should never prevent officials from identifying weaknesses that require reform.
Public institutions do not belong to political parties.
They belong to the people of South Africa.
The Constitution expects accountability not praise singing.
Constructive criticism is not betrayal.
It is public service.
Why Are Critics Labelled Troublemakers?
One of the greatest tragedies in our sector is that individuals who consistently ask difficult questions are often labelled as disruptive, negative or troublesome.
Yet history reminds us that many of today's celebrated heroes were once criticised for refusing to remain silent.
Healthy institutions require criticism.
Transparent institutions welcome scrutiny.
Weak institutions fear questions.
Image: Gayton McKenzie
Looking Beyond Individuals
This article is not about defending or attacking any particular Minister.
It is about asking whether our commitment to accountability survives changes in political leadership.
If a new Minister takes office tomorrow, will we still ask difficult questions?
Will we continue demanding transparency?
Will we insist on fair funding processes?
Will we challenge governance failures?
Or will we simply change the names while repeating the same cycle?
A Sector That Must Outlive Politics
Government is temporary.
Political appointments are temporary.
Boards are temporary.
Administrators are temporary.
Chief executives are temporary.
But South Africa's Cultural and Creative Industries must endure long after today's office bearers have left.
Our loyalty should therefore be to the sector NOT to personalities.
To institutions NOT factions.
To constitutional accountability NOT political convenience.
The question is not whether Minister Gayton McKenzie or any future Minister is beyond criticism.
The real question is whether we, as a sector, are prepared to speak truth to power consistently, regardless of who occupies the office.
Because if our voices only emerge when our allies are excluded, and disappear when our allies benefit, then we are no longer defending the Cultural and Creative Industries.
We are merely defending our own interests.
Perhaps that is the hardest truth of all.
.jpeg)
Comments