Beyond the DA, what are De Lille’s political options?


JOHANNESBURG- Patricia De Lille, the DA mayor of the City of Cape Town has vowed to continue her fight to prove the DA acted in an irrational manner when it expelled her from the party.  Her seeking of relief in the High Court on the which will hear her appeal today confirms she is not taking this lying down. It is clear the DA has committed of comedy of errors and was clutching at straws from the start.

Their meandering and manifold reasons for relieving her of her membership which we are now told is primarily informed by a statement De Lille made, confirm that each of the previous levelled claims was either drummed-up or vacuous, to say the least. There is also clearly going to be repercussions for the DA for this act which plays out in the typical race dilemma with the Coloured vote as the epicentre. De Lille became the object of the full attack of the DA which always includes the useful tools from incompetency to corruption charges.

The DA’ obsession with black ace politics in this season has seen it pushing for a Bonginkosi Madikizela candidacy in replacement of De Lille. Madikizela himself is a former ANC and UDM member and is currently the elected leader of the DA in the Western Cape. One does not have to be a De Lille fan to see the DA acted in a short-sighted and desperate fashion in its desire to get rid of her.  If it uses her statement as the sole and primary reason for relieving her of her membership without following due process, it will need to explain how on the basis of what it had initiated and executed a failed vote of no confidence, levelled accusations of corruption against, advanced incompetence on her part and at the same time expected her to remain of no public opinion as it pertains her political future within the DA. However, let us leave that for the court and judiciary to pronounce on.

The question De Lille is confronted with is what her political choices are going forward. To appreciate her the political options and ultimate choices we must ask what can benefit her, who is her current supporting constituency and how they can benefit. Ultimately, we must ask in what form and with who she may partner to teach the DA a lesson.

De Lille is a popular leader in the Western Cape, she is the first Mayor to attain a two-thirds majority. Under her leadership, the DA secured a significant margin of victory. You, therefore, cannot discount De Lille as a factor. The question is can you overestimate her? Off course in politics, a week is a long time and personal interest often outweighs the greater interest of causes. Her popularity is clearly underestimated by the DA.

De Lille’s constituency beyond all doubt is anchored in those with a denotation of Coloured for an identity. He support is stronger in particular in the Metropolitan Western Cape community. We all know the DA is not as popular in the rural hinterlands of the Western Cape. De Lille’s constituency comprises those who increasingly have become despondent with the DA’s white privilege centredness that is a reality in the City of Cape Town. The recent water crisis which we hear more and more was an engineered crisis centred on an elaborate salination deal with Israel in which the DA would have secured a +R600m war-chest kitty for its 2019 election campaign, has not helped the poor in the Cape metro who already feel marginalised. The elitist agenda and white interest the reason for the DA existence does not sit well with the poor who are black defined in Coloured, African and Indians.

The DA’s obsession to deal with De Lille became a Coloured fight, meaning the average self-identifying Coloured self and or other defined groups that make up this apartheid epithet for identity interpreted the DA’s action against De Lille with intend of replacing her with Madikizela as a direct attack on the Coloured people, who had thus far delivered the DA in successive victories since the ANC lost. Let us also agree when the ANC won the Western Cape it was also because of that constituency. De Lille is therefore considered the evidence of the disrespect the DA has towards this constituency despite the fact that it was loyal to the DA. This constituency can and will punish the DA. De Lille has this angry constituency on her side, for now, willing to punish the DA and hurt them where it matters most.

There are those who automatically assume De Lille will join the ANC, others assume she may even join the Economic Freedom Fighters. The question remains, what are the implications for De Lille’s choice for the ANC. The DA’s failed vote of no confidence in her was opposed by the ANC and the Patriotic Alliance, the latter’s vote ended up being the deciding vote that saw her survive the DA-led motion.

Joining the ANC, may not be as good a choice for her. Unfortunately, as much even some in the Western Cape and National ANC assume, the ANC can directly cash in with her walking into the ANC, the constituency that supports De Lille will be lost if she ventures such a move.  The ANC is today less of political home for Coloureds than it ever was since 1994. We know that the ANC has equally failed to take this constituency serious its many bad choices and known insensitivity interpreted in direct side-lining if not punishing this constituency when it comes to electing and appointing leadership from national to provincial cabinets has painted the ANC in the same vein as the DA. Secondly, the ANC does not inspire or show any change of heart and therefore is not trusted by this constituency regardless to how some politicians in the Western Cape may in this season simplistically approach this matter for their own personal political future gain. De Lille will lose the coloured constituency if she dares to join the ANC because the joining the ANC will not answer the cries of her supporting constituency.

Can De Lille’s choice for the EFF deliver a significant difference or her maintenance of the current support she has from the Coloured constituency that is deeply angered with the DA, and do not trust the ANC? The EFF is not in truth as real a presence as it claims. It remains a 6% party with more strength in Gauteng than anywhere. If the ANC is not trusted the EFF is less trusted for a multiplicity of reasons. The EFF shares strategic relationship with the DA that secured the DA political power and leadership in among others three metros Tshwane, City of Johannesburg and Nelson Mandela Bay. The EFF in its clear apartheid narrow defined African focus policy footprint inspires no hope of ever representing this constituency. Also, the EFF despite all the noise and media space afforded has hitherto not been trusted to lead any municipality as can be seen from the August 2016 local elections performance. The EFF failed to be trusted at a time when the ANC was at its weakest. The EFF, therefore, is no home for the Coloured vote.

In the end, what may be the better option for De Lille? De Lille must find a way to revive her ID Party. When she came into an Alliance with the DA it was because she had a party that contested national elections. Her relationship with Helen Zille and the DA forced her to kill her own party as she was chained by a mayoral position. Perhaps a very important lesson for De Lille, who placed her personal interest above those entrusted her to lead.  The DA having politically shared in affairs and romantically dated half of SA political parties is a master at getting negotiating deals that work for it. After all, it lives up to its name of being an alliance, the only difference is the DA expects those it has affairs with to lose their identity and be subservient to it. De Lille had to give up her ID identity to fit into the DA. De Lille now is confronted with the reality of having to revive her party. Whether Aunty Pat has the energy to do it is another subject, but it does not look like she has any other option if she at least wants to remain popular with her supporting constituency.

She faces the stark challenge of having to revive her party and rebuild it with the hope of entering into a coalition with probably the ANC where she may be able to bargain in the interest of the constituency that continues to support her.  The ANC should also be wise to appreciate De Lille is of better use, not as a member but a coalition partner. In so doing she may be able to have a win-win situation where she gets what she as a politician at personal level may hope for, serve the interest of her primary constituency bargaining for their interest and equally punish the DA thus teaching her former party a political lesson.

Clyde N. S. Ramalaine
Political Commentator & Writer Chairperson of TMoSA Foundation


Nationalists on both sides of the divide of race make the same demands on Britain’s next princess



Is Meghan Markle trapped painted with ‘black’ and ‘bi-racial’ princess demands for her identity? The world awaits the much-publicized wedding of Britain’s Prince Harry to the USA born Suits actress and TV personality Meghan Markle, scheduled for May 19. It is believed, if William, his older brother resembles his mom in facial looks, Harry in every aspect of what some call personality controversy reflects the late Princess Diana.  The one who lives on the edge and is comfortable to stir controversy. As is typical with royalty secrets the world may never know what internal controversy Harry unleashed when he decided to propose marriage to Markle.

In whose interest is it that Meghan remains black or biracial as a means for her identity classification as the spouse of Prince Harry? In any normal society, the marriage of these two would have been celebrated as two love-birds, each with their own histories and life paths, finding their own melody and rhythm in the journey of love they create for themselves. Then again, we don’t live in a normal society, ours is a society that is class informed, race directed and captured and since Harry is considered aristocracy when Meghan is for some in Britain less than a commoner, there was always going to be raised eyebrows and unsavory comments

While class and culture may be real challenges for some, nothing underscores the abnormality more than the ongoing belief in race – a discredited scientific enterprise premised essentially on the Rassen Articles of Immanuel Kant published in 1785. Kant, therefore, was the first to formally introduce us to race in which, white is considered superior. By the time Kant dared to publish his German articles he and those who shared his mind already had opposition to this narrow interpretation of what makes for identity. Nevertheless, Kant, supported by Carl Linnaeus and others continued with the myth of race for a definition of a distinct identity for human beings who share a common humanity. By 1945 at the end of World War 11, eugenics was debunked for the myth it is, yet seventy years beyond this race flourishes and has many carceral in our daily discourse, race lives in our daily interactions, race informs opportunity and access, and race remains a stubborn reality albeit in a claim of its social constructionism foundation.

Why are the same qualification demands not made of Harry? Commentary on the upcoming wedding swings from opposite poles of absolute admiration to horrendous insult interspersed with what I choose to call strange statements for a definition of bi-racialism. The center of what I deem peculiar statements and wild claims as to be expected centers on the identity of Meghan Markle. Notice, the identity of Harry is not in question he is identified as royalty, with a number in line for the British throne. He thus free-wheels in the identity debate and is exonerated from any questions about his identity, he is accepted as white, in pristine sense of clarity and without any labels of qualification of a biracial description. The feminists do not ask why this discrepancy, I guess they do not see this because they too have race as the departure point for identity. The true feminist cannot be silent when a woman is subjected to explain her identity at the hand of a questionable race notion when her male counterpart is given a free pass because his identity and social standing in whiteness is not up for question.

Can Meghan be afforded space and time to be heard in self-defining or is her identity a fate she cannot escape? Markle finds herself caught in the cross-fires of the vocal protagonists of white and black nationalist identities who each deem it their inalienable right to define her, leaving little space if any for her to have her own voice to stand as her father advised her when the white teacher at school encouraged her to tick the Caucasian box since her looks aligned with a white identity. Her daddy’s advice was to ‘draw your own box’. Strangely this was considered profound though her daddy’s advice of an own box is automatically understood and assumed and quantified for biracial as if that was the intent. Incidentally, Meghan’s character in Suits is Rachel. Let us not forget that another American woman Rachel Dolezal tried to draw her own box and the same crowds of nationalist crusaders of race on all sides attacked her till this day. If only the forever bickering race self-appointed police trapped lot regardless to black or white for their bold description can afford others to draw their own boxes? But they won’t relent because their own uncertainty as to who they are is apparently exposed by those who want to draw their own boxes and self-identify.

From the start, Meghan was subjected to a combination of USA race uphold crusaders and the typical British stiff upper lip public scrutiny. In an Elle interview back in 2016 Markle captures the reality of her experience in what she calls a ‘’verbal dance’’ with the following words ‘What are you?’ A question I get asked every week of my life, often every day. ‘Well,’ I say, as I begin the verbal dance I know all too well. ‘I’m an actress, a writer, the Editor-in-Chief of my lifestyle brand The Tig, a pretty good cook and a firm believer in handwritten notes.’ A mouthful, yes, but one that I feel paints a pretty solid picture of who I am. But here’s what happens: they smile and nod politely, maybe even chuckle, before getting to their point, ‘Right, but what are you? Where are your parents from?’ I knew it was coming, I always do. While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: ‘My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I’m half black and half white.’

Meghan’s story is the story of many in a digitally advanced yet growing intolerant and increasing primitive world-society where some deem it their inalienable right to restrict everyone in binaries of black and white for the totality of identity articulation. For them nothing matters but race to describe human beings one way or the other. It is not new for her, yet it now is on the world stage since a British aristocrat decided to fall in love with her and her in turn with him. Love the most natural experience between two human beings anywhere, is not as simple when race is forced into the same space and equation. The story of love is now relayed through the arduous and complicated means of white and black identity frequencies that violently reverberates louder than the common humanity of these two lovebirds, holding the innate potential if not intended to disrupt their love, because race has only regard for itself.

What threat does a self-identifying individual hold for those who defend a group identity in an uncritical claim of either black or white frames? Meghan found herself communicated through the prism of her divorced parents. This later shifted to the issue of her own divorce yet nothing features more prominently than her identity understood in the frame of race. Not that divorce in the British or any other royalty is new, Harry’s parents, direct number one to the throne were divorced after numerous scandals. Harry’s uncle Andrew divorced his wife. Despite this Harry was considered ultra-controversial since he is marrying an American who is black, or as some argue biracial and divorced on top of that. Meghan became a ragdoll for some who are obsessed to demand of her that she owns up to her black princess status and those who want her to be the first bi-racial princess in the history of the monarchy. Both these groups for their own interest fail to afford her any means of an identify devoid of their shared race prism. Dolezal found out that that the world is not ready for self-identification.

Does the evolutionary development of the slaves that came to the United States of America’s identity over more than a century from negroid, to coloured later in the 1960’s to black and ultimately in this epoch to African American frames qualify to be disregarded in this conversation of race with convenient binaries of black and white? Those who uphold black for a means of an identity often have the Black Power movement of the 60’s as a departure point for a black identity defence, a time when blacks rose in forms of resistance to assert blackness as the opposite of what whites have portrayed and made known. castigates her for playing down her blackness and accuses her of living up to whiteness. She is accused of aligning more to whiteness by those who want her to be only black their black princess, their black hope to a white a throne. They even go as far as saying Meghan is the type of black, all whites would want blacks to be. Unfortunately both those who defend a black identity and those who claim a white identity for themselves continue to uphold the sick old American one-drop rule, a social and legal principle of racial classification historically prominent that any person with even one ancestor of sub-Saharan-African ancestry (“one drop” of black blood) is considered black (Negro in historical terms), its implications of racial purity being that anyone unable to pass for white in the context of the US racial hierarchy is assigned the lower status of being non-white or colored. The danger of this uphold be it in original or in an appropriated sense is that has the same negative impact for those identified by it.

This one drop blood is on another level made relevant as extended further beyond the proverbial pond, since it is clear some have a ‘’problem” with royal bloodline being ‘tainted’ via Meghan, and the royal family becoming not as “pure” white from then onward. No one is ever asked actual scientific information on blood types (A, O, AB, B), it is as if black ‘blood’ is from a separate and shamed species, like wolf blood or something in that form. Does it not even dawn on anyone that Harry and Meghan might have the same actual blood type for all we know.

Can Meghan just not be a princess why the qualification? Interesting enough both the right-wing hardliner group and the professing liberals who claim and defend a white denotation for their identity also seek to deny her an identity, they too are proactive in not affording her a claim on whiteness. For all of them, Meghan can only be black, she can only be of mixed race or bi-racial, and she must be reminded to own up to these descriptions for her identity since these constitute her real identity. Unlike Kate Middleton, Williams’s spouse Meghan Markle cannot just be a princess in the British Royalty but warrants a qualification of either black or biracial description, not because either she or Harry demands this but those extended themselves custodianship of the global identity police.

Why do we continue to ask people – what are you, until they are compelled to oblige to tell us what we want to hear with race as the anchor tenant? In the short space of publicly dating Harry, Meghan went from first a white to black than mixed and now we are told she is biracial, the latter is peddled in every advert or reference to the upcoming wedding. We are not sure what biracial means unless it is understood directly extrapolated from the binaries of a white and black race frame. Commentators on CNN categorically refer to her as bi-racial, Meghan, herself, also speaks of her being biracial identity. We not sure if that is in self-identification sense, a right she like all of us is entitled to, or if she merely is yielding to the pressure of what the contesting sides in synchronism of race in both black and white may demand of her.

As her interview leads, upon being asked who you are, she chooses to define herself in many ways with helpful tools of a career, interest other than the obdurate race frame, while she knows the forever lurking question, remains, …but really what are you? She concedes telling people you are a writer, actress, a researcher or receptionist is not enough until you identify in the frame of what they have determined an identity. Elaine Musiwa in November 2017 in an opinion piece in Vogue wrote, Meghan Markle is half black. She is biracial. Her father is white, and her mother is black. These categoric, simplistic and close end easy answers on a complex identity is paraded as final when we know social scientists have long concluded identity is not a fixed construct but lends itself increasingly to a more fluid means.

Meghan is only identified by some with the epithet of bi-racialism understood to mean she is of two races for having a black mother and white father. The challenge with this biracial notion of an identity is its narrow application. Firstly, it is borne out by an upkeep of an indebtedness to race as a means to define a common humanity and secondly it is understood in the constricted straight-jacketed sense of white and black colours as singular poles for the claims of race.

At another level for most of these groups bi-racial is only understood in black and white race frames, they do not tell us if this applies to any other inter-marrying groups such as for example a German and a Spanish. We are not sure you if bi-racial is relevant or not in these instances? If one is bi-racial if one is of mixed race descent why is this even an issue when we know the British Royalty in history is hardly Arian but of mixed descent? Why is race narrowly drawn in black and white cloaks? Should we uncritically embrace and bow before race as the means for our identity only because history has determined that so, or can we argue against the maintenance of race for our common humanity?

I wish Harry and Meghan a love rollercoaster they both will enjoy and have natural pleasant memories of, free from the outdated unscientific and toxic racial frames others in their low self-esteem of self-identifying want to force upon them. I wish Meghan to be another princess in the British Monarchy, not a black princess neither a biracial princess but one who will be what she always has been in her heart and beliefs. Can we leave this couple to celebrate love and free them of the cancer of race that hitherto keeps a world constipated and perpetually poor to appreciate a common humanity?

Clyde N. S. Ramalaine
Political Commentator & Writer Chairperson of TMoSA Foundation

Analysis: Mitchell’s Plain and Siqalo racial conflict!


-A tale of black poverty, neglect manifesting the anomalies of apartheid appropriated race-faultline – identity formulation and spatial definitions-


A week of carnage, hate and violence played out around two of apartheid’s four classified identities understood in Africans and Coloureds. The scene for this was Mitchells Plain and Siqalo geographic township nodes. Mitchell’s Plain my home and 1980’s youth activist world from where I was expelled from Woodlands High as student and sent to run in solstice of 1985 student uprise, no different to Soweto in Johannesburg and Mdantsane in the East London area remains the signpost and stubborn legacy of a successful apartheid project of racial classification, control, and abuse, that haunts   us with impunity in democracy. The same apartheid the political lightweight Kallie Kriel of Afri-Forum today have the audacity to tell us was never a crime against humanity. We all know apartheid the world over as made famous by SA was declared a heresy by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, apartheid the insult to a common humanity that plunged a people into an abyss of racial hate that flares at an instant has embedded itself so deep in our conscious and visual space until its inbred-violence overflows in the blood of its victims.

May 2, became a Wednesday of shame, pain and yes ultimately death when one person lost his life and many were others injured in the tension that flared between Mitchells Plain, Siqalo as neighbouring communities and the police. While we cannot yet draw definitive links between the ongoing violence of Delft commuter bus associations which already claimed nine lives, but the links of poverty remains prominent. These are all communities that share the same socio-economic conditions of abject poverty, scarce resources and unemployment. As we were treated to pictures and live shots of violence and hate evidenced in absurd calls to war against blacks, we mourned again realising the damage apartheid has caused perhaps threatening in an eternal sense.

In the words of a Mitchell’s Plain resident, Ganif Loonat, “It was a terrible moment‚ like the darkest days of this country that we worked so hard to achieve democracy for‚” Loonat furthermore asserts and makes a cardinal point when he said: “This community needs to unite and the poor need to stand together.” The wisdom of his conclusion on this community is what we must use as departure point if we serious to understand what is at stake and among whom this is playing out – the poor.


What is wrong with our approach to understanding what happened?


Our approach to understand and make sense of the subject of the poor collective history understood in a constricted race and economic disparity reflects a haphazard response.  We often in simplicity deny the real crisis, as an event, with the only desire to get it off our radar as the proverbial fly that disturbs us. There were those who just wanted the day over because that is often our escapism until the next moment confronts us. We also quickly rush into our race and group huddled spaces where we spit venom one against the other as a means to get even, this does not help except to show our individual and collective ineptitude to deal with the bigger picture. We heard some say “Coloureds are just as racist as whites’ when we also heard shouts of “these blacks/Africans are lazy and want everything for free while we pay 23 units of electricity a R100”. I cite these here for they are the captured expressed views of South Africans indolent or not across various class definition in commenting on what happened two weeks ago on the most southern part of Africa.


It appears South Africans consciously refuse to engage the articulated accusations at times dwarfed by expletives and drenched in racial identity classifications of those directly affected by the issues at hand. We must hear the background reverberations of race, poverty, identity, class and space. We easily prove dismissive in ease of our determined analysis of the emptiness of their claim. We ought to have learned that being dismissive does not alter the issues some may advance at least as seen and experienced by those who choose to rise and attack be it in stone gun or vehicle. Today we all jump and condemn the attacks (rightfully so) but unfortunately that is but only a first step if we are serious to deal with the issue of the challenges of the landless poor, the resource denied and opportunity robbed for Coloured and Africans that live in Mitchell’s Plain and Siqalo as neighbouring communities. 


SA can do without the self-serving false shame of the political elites

As was expected the first thing the political elites do in instances such as these is to feel embarrassed, ashamed of what happened. They rush to apologise on behalf of those who made themselves guilty of the acts, yet that does not deal with the issues at hand and serves nothing but the interest of the political elite. They acted in the same manner when t claims of xenophobia were advanced, back then out of their shame the elites staged a march to show their disgust.  Beyond the flimsy shame of the elites on both sides of the apartheid African and Coloured divide, we are compelled engage the reality of what moments such as these means, communicate and explain about us as a South African society. Among the elites, there are always those who in this season seeks to steal the limelight with intention of reviving of political careers hoping to be noticed by their political bosses for a promotion, obviously less interested to engage the real issues. The elites shy away from being public about what they share around their braai-stands and in their pool-rooms, where they share the same disgust just not as violent as what they condemn for politically expedient reasons.

What are the advanced claims?

What happened between neighbours immanent in Mitchells Plain and Siqalo is not new, we have lived through it when claims of xenophobic violence were advanced in previous times since 2003. Notice I am qualifying xenophobic violence as a claim, I have elsewhere argued against its usage in our context if the use of the original meaning is departure point.  It’s the same contest of the poor in which the same becomes the other and ultimately with the description of a foreigner and hence a threat to livelihood and meaning of life. It often finds a claim in a mumbled articulation be it the Atteridgeville, East Rand, Soweto, KwaZulu-Natal and last week in Mitchells Plain and Siqalo. The central theme as it is heard in the media adopts the notion of ‘they take our jobs, our business, our women, our children and our RDP homes’. Mitchell’s Plains is ours as coloureds, these people want everything for free, they are invading us from the Eastern Cape where they have homes. They take from us our space.


When we hear them say, THEY TAKE the above we prove dismissive in claims of South Africans are lazy, wanting the government to do everything for them.  These responses as categoric as they are made, recorded, and articulated consciously refuse to hear the two critical words – THEY TAKE. It is here where the subject of – THEY TAKE – is most prominent and finds meaning. Please do not misread me to argue the poor are naturally prone to behave in a violent manner but appreciate the milieu and context rather than a narrow conclusive view on the poor. Claims levelled such as ‘These – people, they take from us…’ operate in a space and place where the most vulnerable struggles to eke out an existence in the midst of a rightfully or wrongly claimed persistent taking from them. It operates in the midst of those for whom a historic, present, and future disenfranchisement, regardless the oft-cited celebrated state of a constitutional democracy, is more than tangible. These are those who have not yet, shared in this South African dream of a collective future of equal opportunity, access and race free citizenry.


What is the common denominator for these neighbours?

The common denominator and binding factor for these communities is that they both share in poverty, the socio-economic conditions they find themselves in fuels a contest for the basics, it is here that the contest for the basics become a bloody and violent expression.  I previously argued the claims of xenophobia as we know never plays out among the elites, the environment of the elites is secured and insulated against any contest for the basics. Everyday in Cape Town in Llandudno a crossbreed to varying degrees of Coloureds, Africans, Indians and Whites (all apartheid classifications) show up at the same Virgin Active exclusive gym, have their children that attend the Bishop’s College in Rondebosch private schools share in sleep-overs and take their dogs to the same expensive parlour.


The elites are active in an economy informed by opportunity to access and gain based on education, political power proximity and an assortment of privileged skills they have acquired. They team up across the racial divide to access more opportunities as the new context of Black Economic Empowerment demand. The elites, therefore, are assimilated in communities of safety where the threat of what of happened in Mitchell’s Plain and Siqalo simply never will manifest. Racial hate and violence among the finds expression among the poorest of the poor. It finds meaning where there is a contestation for resources, services, and access however defined. There is enough evidence to confirm that both these apartheids classified group live, breath, play and transact in this space with the freedom of no real threat that the violence and hate as race engineered and informed may show up


It is here that I wish to postulate ‘racial violence exemplified in the contest of the poor’ as we have witnessed a day after Workers day in South Africa’s biggest Coloured township does not manifest in the spaces where the ruling class lives, transact and play, for here the borders and boundaries have been set informed by ownership of means or a sharing therein as the ruling class permits.




Therefore, these incidents have political meaning, they never dislocated from the bigger picture reality of what South Africa has always been.  They also do not take place devoid of a context and an undeniable reality of the elusive economic dream and the glaring anomalies and failures of economic redress the victims of apartheid had hoped for.  In the case of the Mitchells Plain and Siqalo communities poverty is a common denominator, the binding factor yet at the same time the jet fuel for violent uprise at any time.



What divides these communities?

Their socio-economic context of the said communities plays out against the backdrop of a historical political reality that to large extent continues twenty-four years into democracy, almost concretized in foreverness. For the communities of Mitchell’s Plain and Siqalo, nothing significant has changed from 1993 to 2018. They still poor, their material conditions that make life possible remains as challenging as back then and the reality of a diluted institutionalised racism and discrimination slightly differently defined because the Democratic Alliance now rules, therefore, that apartheid extended a superior identity of white are still in charge. The same beneficiaries of colonialism and apartheid whites, the absent identity in Mitchell’s Plain and Siqalo under the DA is kept safe from this contest insulated just as in apartheid days, while their interest continues to be the focus of the political leadership of the DA.


Clyde N.S Ramalaine

Political Commentator & Writer