Our leaders must stamp out tribalism

There is nothing as detestable, destructive and divisive as tribalism, especially on our continent where if you happen to belong to a certain ethnic group, you could get yourself raped and murdered if you are a woman or girl child.

Tribalism led to the genocide in Rwanda where millions were slaughtered when the Hutus and Tutsis – who had lived peacefully alongside each other for decades – turned on one another resulting in ethnic cleansing of proportions never before seen on African soil.

The Rwanda example shows that leadership should never take anything for granted and through deeds and pronouncements, should forever be sensitive to the issues around tribalism and ethnicity, especially in Africa. Playing the tribalism card should never be allowed in any African democracy.

In SA, the apartheid government tried hard to define and divide us along ethnic lines, and it used to churn out propaganda that was meant to show that Africans could never co-exist and had to be separated along tribal lines.

At school we were taught about separate development and how important it was for the “Bantu” to belong to the then homelands because co-existence would bring about tribal feuds and wars and, of course, textbooks would quote from recent history where there were plenty examples of how Africans have always fought each other.

We were taught to know the homelands, their leaders and the languages spoken there by heart. Although most townships ended up being mixed areas, it was common to see a group of BaSotho, amaSwazi, amaBhaca and amaZulu, getting together along their ethnic lines on Sundays for one cultural event or another. Growing up in the townships made us oblivious to the issues of ethnicity, although sometimes one would get a glimpse of its ugly side from children when they decided to be mean to each other.

When the ANC government came into power it dismantled all homelands and, in my view, outlawed ethnicity.

However, with democracy came the issue of integration where bureaucrats from the previous homelands, especially, found themselves working for the Republic of South Africa and no longer serving their ethnic masters.

But some areas, mostly parastatals such as Transnet, were being dominated by Xhosa-speaking people, because the heads there used to recruit mostly among their former schoolmates, former colleagues and friends.

It is also generally true that during former president Thabo Mbeki’s era, many Xhosa people were appointed to key and strategic positions. I am thinking of the Scorpions, SAA, the Independent Electoral Commission; generally speaking, it was known that amaXhosa were in charge.

The trends still continue in government departments and parastatals where people are not employed on merit only, and ethnicity also plays a role. Now it is President Jacob Zuma’s turn: look at the security cluster, for example. Is it just a coincidence that the only people capable of filling these positions are from KwaZulu-Natal?

It is worrying that on the ground it’s widely punted that we have had two Xhosa-speaking presidents and that it was proper to have the current president who is umZulu. Then others are saying now it is time to have a Xitsonga, Venda or a moPedi president, so that these tribes can also say that they too produced a president. Others put it more crudely and say amaXhosa adlile, amaZulu ayadla, so it should be Limpopo’s turn next.

Tribalists are not only men and women who wear skins and live in rural areas, they can also be found in big corporates, in suits and skirts – people who sincerely believe that the presidency must be rotated among all ethnic groups and they say it, mean it and believe in it.

There are also those who are not so outspoken about this rotation system, but one can pick up that they too believe the presidency must now move north, because the Zulus and the Xhosa have had their turn.

Nobody condemns tribalism openly except for one column I read recently by Prince Mashele in The Sowetan. And yet behind the scenes people do talk and complain about tribalism, while others support politicians along these lines.

Although it is a culture shock for some of us who grew up in mixed areas such as townships, there are many people out there who don’t hesitate to think and act along tribal or ethnic lines.

The fact that our leaders are not talking about tribalism doesn’t mean they don’t believe in it, or that it does not exist in their minds. In my view, the fact that this subject is always swept under the carpet, means one day it will have to come out like all truths. But when it does, it will explode.

I heard one of my professional friends, a female activist who went into exile, say at a dinner table that the reason why Zuma must get a second term is so that we can have peace and stability in SA. She proffered the notion that if Zuma is forced to quit, SA will go into a civil war between the Zulus and the rest of us, adding the violence we experienced in the trains and in townships could rear its ugly head again.

When I was listening to this conversation, I could not reconcile it with the current SA and the direction our country has moved in after 1994. But I must confess, I battled to ignore it completely, especially because there are signs that some among us still think and do things along ethnic lines. The “what if” kept me awake at night. Besides, nobody saw it coming in Rwanda until it was too late.

Is it just possible that there could be tensions simmering in this country along tribal lines? Could it be that apartheid has succeeded in getting us to think that one ethnic group is superior to another, hence the calls to rotate the presidency?

The solution to this quagmire lies with out political leaders. They need to stop aligning themselves with their ethnic groups, and stop appointing and working closely only with those who are from their ethnic background. In fact, is it too much to ask of leaders, whether in government or business, to stop using tribalism as a yardstick of competency?