The brutal death of toddlers and the trauma seen by children on a daily basis are ignored by a government determined to gaslight.
An eight-year-old boy cries uncontrollably over the dead body of his father, trying to make sense of a cruel world. Hours later, a three-year-old is killed, likely while they slept, when gunmen storm an illegal tavern. On the other side of the Gauteng province, a two-year-old burns to death as a water-starved community scrambles to find something to extinguish the flames.
This is a snapshot of life in South Africa. Not only in December or in this last week, but every month, every week, and every day.
The Constitution demands that the state “respect” and “protect” all South Africans from “all forms of violence”.
Yet, the brutal death of toddlers and the trauma seen by children on a daily basis are ignored by a government determined to gaslight everyone into believing they are not to blame.
While officials are right that it is dangerous to jump to conclusions on the death of a Madlanga Commission witness Marius van der Merwe, the mass shooting at Saulsville Hostel, and the shack fire in Fochville, Gauteng; their dismissal of the smoke around the fire is alarming.
Illegal taverns, non-payment for services, and municipal debts are major issues in the country. They are plagues that need to be addressed, but when children as young as two and three are dying government needs to stop playing the blame game and start looking at the role their negligence has played.
Police waved away pleas from communities for more security and enforcement to stop illegal taverns, suggesting they need to follow proper channels to request assistance and then a decision would be made. A police lottery of sorts.
Meanwhile, the Merafong City municipality can’t deliver water amid a whopping R1.4 billion debt, but says the district municipality will investigate whether water can put out a shack fire.
It is the public service’s motto of “go to the next window, this one is closed” in action.
ALSO READ: A VIEW OF THE WEEK: SA’s faceless and crumbling future
Minister colder than the body
But perhaps the most shocking example of gaslighting was by Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Mmamoloko Kubayi in the wake of Van der Merwe’s death.
She started a media briefing after the whistleblower’s murder by immediately defending the government’s witness protection programme and claiming that she had been told Van der Merwe had declined an offer of protection because “he didn’t think he needed it”.
Her deputy, Andries Nel, was worse, correcting his claim that protection was refused by saying: ” Uhm, or let’s put it more kindly, it was declined, for the reasons given.” There was nothing “kindly” coming from him or the minister for a painful hour of them trying to explain themselves.
Besides the fact that those close to Van der Merwe have said Kubayi’s claim was false, the minister’s comments were dismissive, combative, and cold.
Her body language showed no compassion, only self-preservation. An obsession not with her mandate to protect, but to shift the blame.
In her rush to blame the media for their coverage of the Madlanga Commission, and the public for identifying Van der Merwe on social media, she left the stink of insinuation that these were to blame for his death and not her department’s negligence.
She also drew a link between broadcasting testimony at commissions and identifying witnesses, but failed to question whether the layers of anonymity that commissions are applying are thick enough.
Many knew Van der Merwe was Witness D from the moment he started speaking. Just because the minister did not recognise him does not mean his enemies didn’t.
Even if found to be culpable, which legal experts may conclude, Kubayi will probably defend herself on the fact that she was merely being told of Van der Merwe’s decision, and hang the commission staff out to dry on the cords of Broken Telephone.
Meanwhile, the poor and vulnerable will continue to be neglected, unable to light the fire of hope with the gaslighting of those in power.
NOW READ: A VIEW OF THE WEEK: Are you justified in not voting?
