What was the ANC thinking?
January 15th, 2012
Was the symbolism of the ANC’s centenary celebration carefully chosen, or the result of lack of thought?
The weekend of partying started with a golf game and ended with leaders sipping champagne “on behalf of” those who did not have any. I could not imagine two images more likely to convey a sense of an elite leadership enjoying the spoils of power and emphasising the distance between themselves and their followers, particularly the poor and unemployed.
Here is a BBC report on the climax: “(Deputy President) Motlanthe .. told the half-empty stadium that if they did not have champagne, they could take photographs of their leaders drinking, or raise clenched fists. ‘The leaders will now enjoy the champagne, and of course they do so on your behalf through their lips,’’ he said.”
We might be savouring the good life, he seemed to be saying, but of course we do it on your behalf. We may not have delivered the good life to everyone, but we are giving you a chance to take photos of your leaders enjoying it.
Was this a considered act of image management, or an indication that nobody had really thought about it? And for the main event, did someone think about having the president read out an incredibly dull two-hour statement rather than try for a short, punchy, memorable speech?
Television coverage of the event showed how bad things are at the SABC. One would expect the national public broadcaster to have an extended period of documentaries, interviews and discussions on the ANC’s past present and future. What a chance to use the history to enlighten and entertain, to ask questions and probe the organisation and its leaders. And these could have fed into interviews and discussions which look at the organisation now and its choices for the future.
But the SABC did the minimum, as it always seems to do now in relation to current affairs. I think this is because the organisation is too weak to tackle tough issues, too drained to take risks, too distracted to do the planning. If it had done what I suggest, they would have had trouble doing it with critical distance, and it would have come out soft and mushy - and open them to accusations of pandering to the ruling party.
But the problem does not seem to be one of pandering, rather than just not doing anything interesting or provocative or bold to encourage and engage a national conversation.
An opportunity sadly lost.
Entry Filed under: Anton Harber, TV
1 Comment Add your own
1. Eric Moloko | January 30th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
I totaly agree
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed