OPINION | The statue debate: Removing or repositioning symbols must be done well

While some symbols in public spaces can trigger painful memories of the past, losing them will rob the country of its rich narrative, writes Motsaathebe Serekoane.

We need to acknowledge that opening up spaces previously reserved for exclusive inhabitation and use, is inherently problematic in the contestation for place and symbolic public representation.

Broadening the heritage landscape allows us an opportunity to bridge the existing gaps in the heritage space, in particular, askew representation through monuments and declared sites.

The country's 2030 Developmental Plan requires South Africa to continuously reflect on the progress made since the dawn of democracy in 1994.

The scope is big; my focus here is on the heritage landscape. I do not want to create an impression that this matter exists in isolation. The intersectional engagement is imminent. The conversation on heritage is vast.

My summary of all I have read and heard is that at stake in South Africa – with the historical legacy of segregation policies – is the competing notion of space, conflicting and the often competing ideological notion of commemoration or memorialisation and the lack of shared collective memory and meaning of public representation. Effectively, we don't know what to do with our historical text and footprints.

As Steve Biko said, "A community is divided when their perception of the same thing is divided."

Three questions

This is a challenge for the notion of inclusion (social cohesion) and a threat to the preservation and conservation of the country's heritage resources material.

It is equally important that I bring to your attention related conversations which assert that forfeiting the past for the sake of the future is perhaps an overly simplistic way of conceptualising and describing how society moves beyond conflict or pain. The argument for imagining inclusive spaces necessitates a paradigm shift in our thinking.

The literature argues for a move from multiculturalism to interculturalism because of cross-cultural overlaps, interaction and negotiation.

The interculturalism approach goes beyond opportunities and respect for existing cultural differences, to the pluralist transformation of public space, civic culture and institutions. In line with this view, a reconfiguration of public spaces towards inclusive ends would have to emphasise the politics of recognition and negotiation of difference.

So where does this leave us? There are no easy answers.

As the country embarks on the process of auditing and spatial identity transformation I put forward the following three questions:

Sustainable change will require consultation and participation

Advancing change affords interested and affected communities the opportunity to develop an awareness of the layered complexities of our history and intersectional voices (some louder than others), and promotes the practices of collaboration and capacity building with community members to advance sustainable change.

In line with democratic principles, sustainable change will require that the review process acknowledges consultation and participation. Ideally, the audit and review process should be designed to encourage conversation, reflection and social analysis.

The transformation of spatial social milieu should assume collective ownership and management of space founded on the permanent and temporary participation of the "interested and affected parties", with their multiple, varied and even contradictory political interests. In the review of the current symbolic landscape for inclusion, the spatial identity transformation must be negotiated.

It must be developed from a focal point that understands the interrelationship between space and spatial inscription in the form of street names, symbols and public art. 

I can't pre-empt the end of the process – the process should inform the outcome. Should it be that some of the statues are to be "repositioned and relocated", as stated in the president's speech, this should not be equated to dumping history/historical dumping.

READ | Opinion: Theme parks for statues: A threat to nation building?

Repositioning and relocation are plausible alternative arguments in the spatial reconfiguration discourse. If it is done well it should contribute to the educational programme of the country. It should also be kept in mind that memorabilia are protected by the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No 25 1999.

Subsequently, the audit and review would require a nuanced approach guided by the NHRA (and other relevant legislation) and lean towards a process-oriented, person-based approach to allow for agency/agility and new possibilities (cf. SONA pronouncement of imagining the New City).

Imminent is a guiding or reference document that draws lessons from review processes demonstrated by, among others, the University of Free State's review and ultimate relocation of the president MT Steyn statue to the War Museum.

I believe the South African Heritage Resources Authority and its Provincial Heritage Resources Authority should guide the process.

Heritage serves a social and economic function

Just as a footnote, it is prudent that we remind ourselves that heritage, in addition to many things, serves a social and economic function.

Although I acknowledge the view that some symbols in public spaces trigger painful memories of the past, losing those will rob the country of its rich narrative that, in line with NHRA, should be bequeathed to the next generation. It can also boost the country's economy through heritage cultural tourism footprints.

Ultimately, as stated in the NHRA, "Our heritage is unique and precious and it cannot be renewed. It helps us to define our cultural identity and therefore lies at the heart of our spiritual well-being and has the power to build our nation. It has the potential to affirm our diverse cultures and in so doing, shape our national character."

- Motsaathebe Serekoane is a lecturer in anthropology at the University of the Free State.

*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to opinions@news24.com with your name, profile picture, contact details and location. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers' submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.

Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.