The Role of the Youth in Participatory Democracy
By Kwandiwe Kondlo
Let these things be examined, let them be debated not only for us but for generations to come. For despite of our sense of self-importance and pride, we are all just a passing phase. The Youth is also a passing phase and can hardly claim to represent a particular historical force. It is a lie that the Youth of today, as represented by the Youth League of the ANC represents the historical force of the Youth League of Mziwakhe Lembede, AP Mda and Nelson Mandela. Without an identifiable programme, but only snippets around controversial programmes such as the nationalisation of mines, we cannot fully count on this Youth as the seedbed of the democracy to come.
Getting back to the subject – speaking of the Youth, what does one mean? To speak of the Youth is to speak not only of the future of a people or of a nation, but it is to speak of hope; it is to speak of the very ‘soul’ of a nation. Hope, as Paulo Freire (2008) indicates, is an ‘ontological need that demands an anchoring practice’. It requires a realistic practice for it to become edifying; for it to become ‘historical concreteness’. The ‘soul’ of a nation, on the other hand, infers the very seat of power; the wholeness of essence and the propelling drive to higher levels. This underlines the weight of meaning and the depth of value the Youth carries in a nation and to its people. Soren Kierkegaard in his book, ‘Either/Or’ indicates that he prefers speaking to the Youth for with them there is hope that they grow to become rational beings. This he said in the early 1800s, which shows the great hope attached to the Youth throughout generations of scholarship and throughout generations of human existence. The theme ‘the role of the Youth in participatory democracy’ invokes both the ‘performativity’and the ‘constantive’ (Derrida,2002) attributable to that section of society seen as young, fresh, capable and full of life – the Youth. But the question is: are we betting on the right horse? Are we throwing the weight of our expectations and hope where it deserves to be thrown?
This is a very complex subject – the horizon of truth is difficult to reach, but the bottom of despair is not distant. The Youth, our children, have made us wonder where it all went wrong – is it with the mode of our politics of national liberation? Is it with us – by failing to live up to the challenge of moral example? Is it the ubiquitous post-modern materialist culture? Is it the age we are in, as humanity – Eric Habwam (2006) calls it the age of extremes or is it simply an inter-generationally transmitted ‘curse’? Perhaps it is a combination of all these elements, but most importantly the concept and life of marriage and family now faces challenges, given the changed conditions of modernity and the ‘return of history’. The changed conditions of modernity are manifested through the demands for reflexivity one finds in every social space – in marriages, the demands for freedom of choice and the space to be ‘own self’ are threatening stability – it demands that men begin to truly treat and regard their spouses as equals and give them the space and support they need. So do children and Youth demand their voice and serious consideration of their views. The foundations of orthodoxy in the family space are crumbling and without orthodox foundations, what do we lean on? This is the question I won’t venture to answer. But I can invoke the works of Michael Foucault on modes of subjectivation and ‘technologies of the self’ to indicate the importance of conscientization and teaching, of course without impositions, of values that could fashion the ‘self’ to attain lofty goals through a modest life of self-discipline, dedication and commitment.
These are values which should define the family foundations, values which the Youth can carry into the political sphere. This brings to the fore the importance of foundational years of the child in the family before he becomes Youth. But when talking about the family we must not be romantic, there are realities we need to understand and confront. These include the fact that the conventional family as we have known it is being discredited by the fact that it has tendencies which foster and sustain gender inequality where women are expected to be subordinate to and financially dependent on men, and where women’s place is thought to be the home. Also, the model nuclear family, which the Government inadvertently upholds and promotes, is gradually giving way to other family types, such as lone-person families, polygamous family models and single-parent families. These kinds of families are likely to breed different kinds of children who become the Youth of tomorrow, unless they are united by values and these values need to be the values of society at large. This is where the notion of an ethical society and ethical public leadership instilling values our children can emulate becomes important. This is how as a society, as various kinds of families, we can set the foundation for the ‘construction’ of a deserving Youth. This is a new kind of ‘youth’ South Africa needs to preserve its heritage and future. A ‘deserving youth’ is the youth that is conscious of its dignity and destiny; it is a youth that has gotten right the essentials of life’s philosophical strategy and is therefore able to both discover and fulfil its mission; it is a youth that has gotten to know the spiritual value embedded in emancipatory praxis and that freedom consists of discipline and selfless service to others. Most importantly, a ‘deserving youth’ is the kind of youth that embraces the ‘absurd;’ by this I refer to the ethic of compassion and the ethic of respect. But the question is how to fracture a new constructive spirit; how to invoke a new awakening and levels of critical consciousness that are commensurate with the challenges that our democracy faces, amongst the ranks of our youth.
Dealing with Conceptual Issues
Can one define the Youth? The definitions of who the youth is on the African continent, of which South Africa is part, are so many, wide and varied depending on country-specific contexts and, in some instances, applicable legislations. The problems with the notion of ‘youth’ is that it sometimes conveys the impression that “it represents a trans-historical and trans-cultural category,” whereas the “concept of youth is not universal in range or nature,” hence the “cultural meanings and social attributes ascribed to youth vary” (Fokwang 2007: 308). But there is a developing analytical core in academic literature around which there is a significant degree of consensus on what the term ‘youth’ infers. Sussan Baller (2007:377) quoting Deborah Durham, characterises the notion of the youth as inferring a “social shifter”, “something which points to the relational context in which young people define themselves.” Whereas Jude Fokawang (2007:308) argues that the notion of youth as a social category “is a construction across time and space,” rather than a fixed and context transcendent category. As Linda Richter and Saadhana Panday (2007: 293) put it, “the youth is essentially a comparative self-perception, arising within a social, economic and cultural context. Young people are not only in transition, but youth itself is a transitional construct.” There are of course legalistic, age-based policy definitions of youth and these vary from country to country. “For example, Kenya and Malawi define the youth as 15-30 years of age; Sierra Leone, Ghana, Madagascar and Senegal as 15-35 and South Africa as 14-35” (Richter & Panday 2007:294).
The Youth in Historical Perspective
The role of the youth in South African politics is probably as old as society’s construction of the ‘youth’ as a social category. From the beginning of wars of primary resistance just after 1657, to the rise early African nationalism in the late 1860s, to modern Nationalist movements as expressed in the formation of the ANC in 1912, to the post-1994 liberation project, the youth in South Africa has always played an important role, albeit the variations in scope and profiles of their role. But the role of the ‘youth’ must also be underlined in areas of collaboration with oppressor forces, counter-resistance and counter-insurgency initiatives against ‘own’ people. The ‘Native garrisons’, the Native Corp’, the ‘Native Warder’, etc., were partially constituted by the youths and all these attest to instances of wilful collaboration by the youth in oppressive institutions of the colonial and apartheid era. I mention this because there is a tendency to romanticise the history of the youth in South Africa as though it was a history of struggle against oppression and we forget to mention that it is also a history of betrayal and collaboration with oppressive systems. In other words, the youth is not one homogenous block but is a very heterogonous social category in terms of age, culture, and political outlook, hence the homogenising assessments of its role are incorrect.
The Youth’s Role in Participatory Democracy in South Africa: A Critique
We have a situation in South Africa where ‘effective’ youth participation is visible among certain Youths of particular political traditions. The ANC Youth League and ‘Young’ Communists in South Africa are now the visible representatives of the ‘youth’ of South Africa. As a result when we talk about youth participation in democracy, we always refer to the Youth in these two structures. We forget to indicate that these are youth structures of a political majority party and the majority party itself is not necessarily representative of the whole people of South Africa. South Africa is much broader, much more diverse to be expressed through one political party that happens to enjoy numerical majority. The youth outside organised political structures—the youth in village organisations, the youth in ‘cattle deep’ organisations, the youth in burial societies—tend to be marginalised, or their voices not heard in matters of political participation. The question is, how do we pull together the richness and diversity of our youth in order to develop ‘a deserving youth’ that have something positive to contribute to our participatory democracy.
To elucidate my arguments about the role of the youth in participatory democracy, I would like to use as an instance, participation by the youth of Mvumelwano village, a small rural location outside a rural town called Qumbu in the former Transkei. The reason why I use this approach is that many theoretical generalisations one finds in the literature lack reference to empirical instances in order to anchor the analysis.
I have chosen the Mvumelwano location, because of the research I did with Jeff Peirez (now based at Rhodes University) in the Qumbu district in the early 1990s. This added to research work I did with Colin Bundy (based in Oxford University) in the late 1980s in this area. It is also ‘home’ territory to me and I have easy access to both written and oral sources. The district of Qumbu generally has a long history of violence. Predominantly occupied by the Mpondomise tribe of Mhlontlo ka Myeki, the areas was a battle-frontier during the Transkei rebellion in the late 1800; it also witnessed the Mpondomise rebellion against the White domination, the anti-Deeping movement, the movements against stock theft – widely called Tshisa-tshisa/Umfela Ndawonye/ Makhulu-span. These movements were started and led mostly by the youth. One is likely to conclude that Qumbu experienced one of the most enduring situations of intergenerational transfer of ‘historical grief’ and as a result, the reproduction of conditions of a violent youth culture. This is one area where the phenomenon of a ‘non-deserving’ youth can perhaps be clearly argued. The numbers of murders and thefts by youths under the age of 25 years is illustrated in police records. The same youths also swell the ranks of the ruling party as supporters but they continue threaten the voices of independent members of the community. The community has virtually submitted to the rule of these youths, hence the weakening of previously existing bonds of solidarity in this community.
The moment of rupture in Qumbu politics and the politics of the former Transkei started when the Holomisa-led homeland government agreed to have the remains of the Tembu King Sabata Dalindyebo, who died in exile, reburied in a dignified way by the ANC at his Great Place in Umtata. Just after that, the ANC and other liberation movements were unbanned and Nelson Mandela was released from prison. These developments animated rural local politics and the youth in Mvumelwano literally took the battle for liberation to the door steps of the local Headman, Mr Gwele. He became the epitome of oppression; not that this was true, but it fed from perceptions and longstanding grounds of dissatisfaction with his rule in the village and allegation of corruption. Gwele’s councillors, his family and the entire network of relatives were lumped together into one basket of enemy forces. The youth-led struggle ransacked the village, which led to serious shedding of blood. These youths claimed affiliation to the ANC Youth League and the havoc they inflicted in the community appeared like it was done in the name of the ANC. The political consciousness the youth brought into the life of the Mvumelwano location is very good, but the excesses of their political actions and moral conduct undermined whatever good intentions they had. This is despite the interventions by senior local ANC members, who criticised the youth for lack of discipline and disrespect for community elders. The local ANC leaders themselves ended up a target of some factions of the youth who suspected them to be ‘agents’ of the local headmen and his group. In other words, the youth disobeyed the interventions of the local ANC leadership and continued to create tensions and disorder in the community. The situation was eventually quelled by the intervention of law enforcement agencies. Mr Gwele, eventually resigned as headman and a pro-ANC youth headman, took over. The situation resulted in the targeted pro-Gwele group mobilising and joining a local PAC formation led by members of the Mda and Madasa families. The latter were dignified and credible people in the community and as a result their campaign, on behalf of the PAC during the 1994 elections, dented the ANC’s local level support in a way that was never to be seen in subsequent elections. The indiscipline of the ANC-aligned Youths, their lack of respect for elders and political opponents in the run-up to the 1994 elections and their involvement in acts of violence and thefts, created a huge liability for the ANC at the local level, but at national level the liability was effectively counter-balanced by Nelson Mandela’s outstanding leadership capability and undoubted integrity.
The point I am making is that the youth’s role from the very foundational moment of democratic governance in South Africa, was sometimes largely unguided, largely not informed by a clear emancipatory concept and largely lacking discipline and an ethic of compassion and respect. The community of Mvumelwano has not recovered to date from the wounds inflicted over the 1989-1994 period. The bonds of communal solidarity; the resources trust and the networks of kinship still remain strained, hence the ever increasing levels of youth criminality, early pregnancies and HIV/Aids. This is a microcosm of the dynamics and character of the wider youth role in participatory democracy in South Africa. The role of the youth in participatory democracy borders, to a large extent, on protest politics and dictatorship of the majority. Of course, there are instances when the country gets constructive inputs and interventions from youth formations, such as the National Youth Development Agency. The initiatives of this particular formation generate a fair degree of hope, but it will take time to realise the impact of its interventions. The challenge, however, is how to extend the reach of its programmes to the deep rural communities and also broaden its services so that it is not perceived as merely a constituency building intervention by the ruling party. This perception imposes a number of limits to the various forums of public participation our government has created.
Kwandiwe Kondlo is the Senior Professor and Chair of Africa Studies at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein
References
• Baller, S (2007): ‘Youth, theatre and sports, creating ‘conscious’ citizens within the Senegalese Nowetaan Movement, in Africa Insight, Vol. 37 (3), September 2007, African Institute, Pretoria
• Derrida, J (2002): Without Alibi, Stanford University Press, Stanford
• Freire, P (2009): Education for critical consciousness, Continuum, London
• Fokwang, J (2007): ‘Youth involvement in civil society in Camerron since 1990, in Africa Insight, Vol. 37 (3), September 2007, African Institute, Pretoria
• Rabinow, P (2000): Ethics – Essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Penguin Books, London
• Hobsbawm, E (1995): The Age of Extremes, 1914-1991, Abacus, UK
Let these things be examined, let them be debated not only for us but for generations to come. For despite of our sense of self-importance and pride, we are all just a passing phase. The Youth is also a passing phase and can hardly claim to represent a particular historical force. It is a lie that the Youth of today, as represented by the Youth League of the ANC represents the historical force of the Youth League of Mziwakhe Lembede, AP Mda and Nelson Mandela. Without an identifiable programme, but only snippets around controversial programmes such as the nationalisation of mines, we cannot fully count on this Youth as the seedbed of the democracy to come.
Getting back to the subject – speaking of the Youth, what does one mean? To speak of the Youth is to speak not only of the future of a people or of a nation, but it is to speak of hope; it is to speak of the very ‘soul’ of a nation. Hope, as Paulo Freire (2008) indicates, is an ‘ontological need that demands an anchoring practice’. It requires a realistic practice for it to become edifying; for it to become ‘historical concreteness’. The ‘soul’ of a nation, on the other hand, infers the very seat of power; the wholeness of essence and the propelling drive to higher levels. This underlines the weight of meaning and the depth of value the Youth carries in a nation and to its people. Soren Kierkegaard in his book, ‘Either/Or’ indicates that he prefers speaking to the Youth for with them there is hope that they grow to become rational beings. This he said in the early 1800s, which shows the great hope attached to the Youth throughout generations of scholarship and throughout generations of human existence. The theme ‘the role of the Youth in participatory democracy’ invokes both the ‘performativity’and the ‘constantive’ (Derrida,2002) attributable to that section of society seen as young, fresh, capable and full of life – the Youth. But the question is: are we betting on the right horse? Are we throwing the weight of our expectations and hope where it deserves to be thrown?
This is a very complex subject – the horizon of truth is difficult to reach, but the bottom of despair is not distant. The Youth, our children, have made us wonder where it all went wrong – is it with the mode of our politics of national liberation? Is it with us – by failing to live up to the challenge of moral example? Is it the ubiquitous post-modern materialist culture? Is it the age we are in, as humanity – Eric Habwam (2006) calls it the age of extremes or is it simply an inter-generationally transmitted ‘curse’? Perhaps it is a combination of all these elements, but most importantly the concept and life of marriage and family now faces challenges, given the changed conditions of modernity and the ‘return of history’. The changed conditions of modernity are manifested through the demands for reflexivity one finds in every social space – in marriages, the demands for freedom of choice and the space to be ‘own self’ are threatening stability – it demands that men begin to truly treat and regard their spouses as equals and give them the space and support they need. So do children and Youth demand their voice and serious consideration of their views. The foundations of orthodoxy in the family space are crumbling and without orthodox foundations, what do we lean on? This is the question I won’t venture to answer. But I can invoke the works of Michael Foucault on modes of subjectivation and ‘technologies of the self’ to indicate the importance of conscientization and teaching, of course without impositions, of values that could fashion the ‘self’ to attain lofty goals through a modest life of self-discipline, dedication and commitment.
These are values which should define the family foundations, values which the Youth can carry into the political sphere. This brings to the fore the importance of foundational years of the child in the family before he becomes Youth. But when talking about the family we must not be romantic, there are realities we need to understand and confront. These include the fact that the conventional family as we have known it is being discredited by the fact that it has tendencies which foster and sustain gender inequality where women are expected to be subordinate to and financially dependent on men, and where women’s place is thought to be the home. Also, the model nuclear family, which the Government inadvertently upholds and promotes, is gradually giving way to other family types, such as lone-person families, polygamous family models and single-parent families. These kinds of families are likely to breed different kinds of children who become the Youth of tomorrow, unless they are united by values and these values need to be the values of society at large. This is where the notion of an ethical society and ethical public leadership instilling values our children can emulate becomes important. This is how as a society, as various kinds of families, we can set the foundation for the ‘construction’ of a deserving Youth. This is a new kind of ‘youth’ South Africa needs to preserve its heritage and future. A ‘deserving youth’ is the youth that is conscious of its dignity and destiny; it is a youth that has gotten right the essentials of life’s philosophical strategy and is therefore able to both discover and fulfil its mission; it is a youth that has gotten to know the spiritual value embedded in emancipatory praxis and that freedom consists of discipline and selfless service to others. Most importantly, a ‘deserving youth’ is the kind of youth that embraces the ‘absurd;’ by this I refer to the ethic of compassion and the ethic of respect. But the question is how to fracture a new constructive spirit; how to invoke a new awakening and levels of critical consciousness that are commensurate with the challenges that our democracy faces, amongst the ranks of our youth.
Dealing with Conceptual Issues
Can one define the Youth? The definitions of who the youth is on the African continent, of which South Africa is part, are so many, wide and varied depending on country-specific contexts and, in some instances, applicable legislations. The problems with the notion of ‘youth’ is that it sometimes conveys the impression that “it represents a trans-historical and trans-cultural category,” whereas the “concept of youth is not universal in range or nature,” hence the “cultural meanings and social attributes ascribed to youth vary” (Fokwang 2007: 308). But there is a developing analytical core in academic literature around which there is a significant degree of consensus on what the term ‘youth’ infers. Sussan Baller (2007:377) quoting Deborah Durham, characterises the notion of the youth as inferring a “social shifter”, “something which points to the relational context in which young people define themselves.” Whereas Jude Fokawang (2007:308) argues that the notion of youth as a social category “is a construction across time and space,” rather than a fixed and context transcendent category. As Linda Richter and Saadhana Panday (2007: 293) put it, “the youth is essentially a comparative self-perception, arising within a social, economic and cultural context. Young people are not only in transition, but youth itself is a transitional construct.” There are of course legalistic, age-based policy definitions of youth and these vary from country to country. “For example, Kenya and Malawi define the youth as 15-30 years of age; Sierra Leone, Ghana, Madagascar and Senegal as 15-35 and South Africa as 14-35” (Richter & Panday 2007:294).
The Youth in Historical Perspective
The role of the youth in South African politics is probably as old as society’s construction of the ‘youth’ as a social category. From the beginning of wars of primary resistance just after 1657, to the rise early African nationalism in the late 1860s, to modern Nationalist movements as expressed in the formation of the ANC in 1912, to the post-1994 liberation project, the youth in South Africa has always played an important role, albeit the variations in scope and profiles of their role. But the role of the ‘youth’ must also be underlined in areas of collaboration with oppressor forces, counter-resistance and counter-insurgency initiatives against ‘own’ people. The ‘Native garrisons’, the Native Corp’, the ‘Native Warder’, etc., were partially constituted by the youths and all these attest to instances of wilful collaboration by the youth in oppressive institutions of the colonial and apartheid era. I mention this because there is a tendency to romanticise the history of the youth in South Africa as though it was a history of struggle against oppression and we forget to mention that it is also a history of betrayal and collaboration with oppressive systems. In other words, the youth is not one homogenous block but is a very heterogonous social category in terms of age, culture, and political outlook, hence the homogenising assessments of its role are incorrect.
The Youth’s Role in Participatory Democracy in South Africa: A Critique
We have a situation in South Africa where ‘effective’ youth participation is visible among certain Youths of particular political traditions. The ANC Youth League and ‘Young’ Communists in South Africa are now the visible representatives of the ‘youth’ of South Africa. As a result when we talk about youth participation in democracy, we always refer to the Youth in these two structures. We forget to indicate that these are youth structures of a political majority party and the majority party itself is not necessarily representative of the whole people of South Africa. South Africa is much broader, much more diverse to be expressed through one political party that happens to enjoy numerical majority. The youth outside organised political structures—the youth in village organisations, the youth in ‘cattle deep’ organisations, the youth in burial societies—tend to be marginalised, or their voices not heard in matters of political participation. The question is, how do we pull together the richness and diversity of our youth in order to develop ‘a deserving youth’ that have something positive to contribute to our participatory democracy.
To elucidate my arguments about the role of the youth in participatory democracy, I would like to use as an instance, participation by the youth of Mvumelwano village, a small rural location outside a rural town called Qumbu in the former Transkei. The reason why I use this approach is that many theoretical generalisations one finds in the literature lack reference to empirical instances in order to anchor the analysis.
I have chosen the Mvumelwano location, because of the research I did with Jeff Peirez (now based at Rhodes University) in the Qumbu district in the early 1990s. This added to research work I did with Colin Bundy (based in Oxford University) in the late 1980s in this area. It is also ‘home’ territory to me and I have easy access to both written and oral sources. The district of Qumbu generally has a long history of violence. Predominantly occupied by the Mpondomise tribe of Mhlontlo ka Myeki, the areas was a battle-frontier during the Transkei rebellion in the late 1800; it also witnessed the Mpondomise rebellion against the White domination, the anti-Deeping movement, the movements against stock theft – widely called Tshisa-tshisa/Umfela Ndawonye/ Makhulu-span. These movements were started and led mostly by the youth. One is likely to conclude that Qumbu experienced one of the most enduring situations of intergenerational transfer of ‘historical grief’ and as a result, the reproduction of conditions of a violent youth culture. This is one area where the phenomenon of a ‘non-deserving’ youth can perhaps be clearly argued. The numbers of murders and thefts by youths under the age of 25 years is illustrated in police records. The same youths also swell the ranks of the ruling party as supporters but they continue threaten the voices of independent members of the community. The community has virtually submitted to the rule of these youths, hence the weakening of previously existing bonds of solidarity in this community.
The moment of rupture in Qumbu politics and the politics of the former Transkei started when the Holomisa-led homeland government agreed to have the remains of the Tembu King Sabata Dalindyebo, who died in exile, reburied in a dignified way by the ANC at his Great Place in Umtata. Just after that, the ANC and other liberation movements were unbanned and Nelson Mandela was released from prison. These developments animated rural local politics and the youth in Mvumelwano literally took the battle for liberation to the door steps of the local Headman, Mr Gwele. He became the epitome of oppression; not that this was true, but it fed from perceptions and longstanding grounds of dissatisfaction with his rule in the village and allegation of corruption. Gwele’s councillors, his family and the entire network of relatives were lumped together into one basket of enemy forces. The youth-led struggle ransacked the village, which led to serious shedding of blood. These youths claimed affiliation to the ANC Youth League and the havoc they inflicted in the community appeared like it was done in the name of the ANC. The political consciousness the youth brought into the life of the Mvumelwano location is very good, but the excesses of their political actions and moral conduct undermined whatever good intentions they had. This is despite the interventions by senior local ANC members, who criticised the youth for lack of discipline and disrespect for community elders. The local ANC leaders themselves ended up a target of some factions of the youth who suspected them to be ‘agents’ of the local headmen and his group. In other words, the youth disobeyed the interventions of the local ANC leadership and continued to create tensions and disorder in the community. The situation was eventually quelled by the intervention of law enforcement agencies. Mr Gwele, eventually resigned as headman and a pro-ANC youth headman, took over. The situation resulted in the targeted pro-Gwele group mobilising and joining a local PAC formation led by members of the Mda and Madasa families. The latter were dignified and credible people in the community and as a result their campaign, on behalf of the PAC during the 1994 elections, dented the ANC’s local level support in a way that was never to be seen in subsequent elections. The indiscipline of the ANC-aligned Youths, their lack of respect for elders and political opponents in the run-up to the 1994 elections and their involvement in acts of violence and thefts, created a huge liability for the ANC at the local level, but at national level the liability was effectively counter-balanced by Nelson Mandela’s outstanding leadership capability and undoubted integrity.
The point I am making is that the youth’s role from the very foundational moment of democratic governance in South Africa, was sometimes largely unguided, largely not informed by a clear emancipatory concept and largely lacking discipline and an ethic of compassion and respect. The community of Mvumelwano has not recovered to date from the wounds inflicted over the 1989-1994 period. The bonds of communal solidarity; the resources trust and the networks of kinship still remain strained, hence the ever increasing levels of youth criminality, early pregnancies and HIV/Aids. This is a microcosm of the dynamics and character of the wider youth role in participatory democracy in South Africa. The role of the youth in participatory democracy borders, to a large extent, on protest politics and dictatorship of the majority. Of course, there are instances when the country gets constructive inputs and interventions from youth formations, such as the National Youth Development Agency. The initiatives of this particular formation generate a fair degree of hope, but it will take time to realise the impact of its interventions. The challenge, however, is how to extend the reach of its programmes to the deep rural communities and also broaden its services so that it is not perceived as merely a constituency building intervention by the ruling party. This perception imposes a number of limits to the various forums of public participation our government has created.
Kwandiwe Kondlo is the Senior Professor and Chair of Africa Studies at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein
References
• Baller, S (2007): ‘Youth, theatre and sports, creating ‘conscious’ citizens within the Senegalese Nowetaan Movement, in Africa Insight, Vol. 37 (3), September 2007, African Institute, Pretoria
• Derrida, J (2002): Without Alibi, Stanford University Press, Stanford
• Freire, P (2009): Education for critical consciousness, Continuum, London
• Fokwang, J (2007): ‘Youth involvement in civil society in Camerron since 1990, in Africa Insight, Vol. 37 (3), September 2007, African Institute, Pretoria
• Rabinow, P (2000): Ethics – Essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984, Penguin Books, London
• Hobsbawm, E (1995): The Age of Extremes, 1914-1991, Abacus, UK