Malaika Wa Azania XOLELA MANCUS ATTACK ON PRESIDENT ZUMA IS UNREASONABLE AND REEKS OF NARROW AND PUERILE LOGIC I am highly disturbed by the article (if we may even call it that) written by Xolela Mancu in which he commands president Jacob Zuma to write a book within 6 months, arguing, opportunistically, that it is Zumas responsibility to carry on this tradition of ANC leaders, all of whom, with the exception of him, have written a book, a journal or some form of literary work that contributed to knowledge production. This silly argument that Mancu is posing must be challenged, lest it is accepted as intelligent or even intelligible. One of the biggest tragedies about our education system is that it treats students as if they have a uniform way of learning. All students are expected to employ the same methods of learning and produce the same results. What this logic fails to take into consideration is that students are individuals and individuals are NOT the same, and therefore, there is no one universal application of teaching that can cater to all their differences. Students have different ways of thinking and therefore, their learning styles differ. Some students learning style is auditory, they understand better when a teacher explains to them as opposed to when they have to read through a texbook. Some students are visual learners, they understand better when they look at graphics or watch demonstrations or read from a textbook as opposed to listening when a teacher speaks. And some learners are kinesthetic, they understand better when they do practical work as opposed to listening to lessons being delivered or watching graphics. What this means, therefore, is that if a kinesthetic learner is placed in a classroom where they are forced to learn by listening to a teacher, they will most likely not perform very well. Their attention will be distracted, they will lose track of the lesson and ultimately, perform badly when it is time for exams. The same would happen if a visual learner is forced to become a kinesthetic student. This is what is happening in the education system of our country: a fish is being judged by its ability to cycle and naturally, it is failing. Mancus argument that president Zuma should write a book locates itself within the same failed logic as that of our education system. It seeks to suggest that there is one way of communicating ideas, and that only that way is intelligent enough to be legitimised. Mancu wants to argue, narrowly so, that Zumas worth as a president ought to, in some ways, be judged by his failure to write a book or any other literary work. Mancu seeks to suggest that by not writing, president Zuma is less intellectually capacitated than all former ANC leaders, an argument that is debatable for very many reasons. He fails to appreciate that Zuma may be differently skilled from the other ANC leaders with whom he is being compared. The argument that ideas can only live or be legitimate if written as a book is a false argument that treats our world as if it is primitive and had not been exposed to progressive technological advances. We live in a developing world that makes allowance for us to utilise other means to preserve our knowledge systems and contributions. President Zuma might not communicate his ideas on paper, he might communicate them orally, and they will be documented through other means such as recordings, video tapings or transcriptions. It is a fallacy of composition to argue that him not writing is an indication that he does not think. In fact, it is a fallacy to argue, and this is what Mancus article suggests, that writing is in itself a measure if intellectual sophistication. There exists very many books that should never have been published; books lacking completely in intellectual depth and books which do not contribute in any way to progressive societal discourse on any subject matter. Furthermore, Mancu needs to be taught politics of context and time. He excitedly cites examples of former ANC leaders who wrote, all of whom, with the exception of Mandela and Thabo Mbeki, led before the democratic dispensation. Most of the leaders that he cites led the ANC either when it was in its formative years or when it was banned. Naturally, when an organisation is in its early stages, a foundation needs to be laid, hence there ought to be extensive literature coming from its leadership. And during its years underground, it was imperative for the ANC to communicate to its constituency, the masses of our people, not only so as to decolonise their minds in a time of liberation struggle, but also to architect a critical pedagogy birthed out of that struggle. Post 1994, the burden of theorising is less dominant than it was during the formation of the ANC; the immediate task in this phase of struggle is implementation of the multitudes of policies that have been architected since the ANC became the ruling party 19 years ago. The reality of the situation is that researchers and academics have been solicited to draft policies for our government. It was a team of researchers and academics that drafted GEAR and all former and existing policies of government, so at the level of theoretical conception, there is material available. What is lacking is, fundamentally, the implementation of all these policies which are the ideas of our government on where our country should go. Mancu argues that president Zuma must write his ideas about the countrys future, but he neglects to appreciate that policies are, in fact, an articulation of precisely that, albeit at a more technical level. Zumas role is to articulate his vision and the means he uses are not an issue. He may simply outline what he wants and have a team of researchers and scholars doing the writing; there is nothing wrong with this! But beyond this, it is unfair and very opportunistic of Mancu to expect the president to achieve the feat that was achieved by former leaders who, in very many ways, are scholarly superiors of president Zuma (note that i am saying they are more educated than Zuma, not that they are more intelligent). For those to whom writing is not a talent, it is a skill that must be learned. We all know that president Jacob Zuma is not educated, why then do we want him to have skills that are developed through education? It is the same as shouting at a child you know is blind, demanding that they tell you the colour of pants you are wearing. It is insincere and i have concluded that Mancu is merely grandstanding as opposed to raising legitimate questions intended at provoking legitimate answers. Some will argue that i am defending Zuma and saying it is okay to not write. Let me make it very clear that i take writing very seriously, hence i am a columnist and contributing writer in various publications including Mail & Guardians THOUGHT LEADER and former Minister in the Presidency Dr Essop Pahads publication, THE THINKER. More than that, i wrote my first book (which is being launched on the eve of the 2014 elections) at the age of 21. So i do take writing very seriously and i do believe that it is important. But to want to suggest that those who do not write are less intelligent, or that intelligence itself is proven by writing, is the most ridiculous and lazy argument i have heard. It fails to appreciate the fact that people are skilled differently, and that not all of us can or should write. One may be an above-average writer, but a below-average administrator, and vice versa. There is nothing sinister about this, certainly not warranting of condemnation by the likes of Mancu who want to project themselves as think-tanks solely on the basis that they have written a book on the life and politics of Steve Biko. I am not defending president Zuma, i am defending a principle i have always held, that we are gifted differently, and people cannot be judged because they do not have the same competencies that we have. Mancu may be a great writer (something that i personally do not see), but he might be a terrible administrator. Would it be fair then to argue that he amounts to nothing if he cant administrate? No, because his competency is in writing, not admin. Why then does he want to influence readers to measure president Zumas capacity as a leader by his writing as opposed to other competencies that he might have, which other ANC leaders could have even lacked? Mancus vitriol must be rejected as nothing else but narrow and puerile thinking. Analysts in our country have made it their mission to bash and attack president Zuma at every opportunity they get, whether or not their arguments are coherent or even constructive. This tendency must be arrested and annihilated because rather than having analysts and academics who shape critical discourse, we have intellectually compromised individuals polluting our discourse with non-debates. #I share this because really now political debate has ceased to be abt substantive issues bt about one man#
Posted on: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:27:28 +0000