Chippy Olver is the truth teller South Africa needs now

“A whole lot of other stuff that goes on right in front of our noses, day in and day out, because it involves people we’re biased towards, we don’t describe as corrupt.” – Crispian Olver

TELFORD VICE in Cape Town

“YOU’VE been through hell.” In times like these, we need words like those from people like Crispian Olver, who had drawn a packed house to hear him say them.

“Half the room were wondering what I’d said about them,” Olver told New Frame days later. The other half were there to hear a champion of plain speaking. 

We were at the Book Lounge on Buitenkant Street in Cape Town, an oasis of civility in a city whose rough edges run deep. Olver was there to launch “A House Divided: The Feud that took Cape Town to the Brink”, which lays bare the chronic dysfunction of the City — as opposed to the city — and drapes it, in all its inelegant wilful wastefulness, on the bones of the 2018 water crisis.

In 2017 he gave us “How to Steal a City: The Battle for Nelson Mandela Bay”, his exposé of what publishers Jonathan Ball called the “rotten heart” of the Eastern Cape conurbation.

Eighteen months or so from now Olver’s book on Johannesburg should appear. Like the other two it will complement his work towards a PhD. Olver strips away bullshit and presents what he finds unflinchingly. Not only is his truth stranger than fiction, it’s also more readable than much of the work of public intellectuals. He doesn’t sling strings of statistics, or warble walls of weighty words. He speaks fluent human. “You’ve been through hell,” he tells us. Man, don’t we know it.

What became “A House Divided” took shape when Olver was refused permission to research, he writes, “how the city was governed, and in particular the way that financial interests intersected with politics and the City administration”. His request was denied, he was informed, “due to the high risk and significant impact on the CCT [City of Cape Town]”. Why didn’t the best-run metro in the country want to bask in that glory?

Because many who disagreed with the then mayor, Patricia de Lille, including highly skilled and experienced city planners, over major construction projects found themselves restructured out of their jobs. Because De Lille was worryingly close to the money flowing into those projects, and demanded that the experts did little besides implement her decisions. Because the City, far from being the epitome of efficiency, worked despite itself. But trying to keep Olver out only strengthened his resolve to get in. 

“Sparing none of the political actors, [“A House Divided”] demonstrates how ordinary citizens and the poorest among us get detracted [sic] by intra-party battles and business interests,” is how Adam Habib, a doyen of Olver’s ilk, endorses a work he describes as “public interest writing at its best”.

We know the government is corrupt. Just as we know Eskom can’t keep the lights on, and that we live — and die — in the shadow of outrageously high rates of vicious crime against women and African foreigners. So writing about South Africa’s problems means engaging an audience suffering from dysfunction fatigue.

“I find the South African debate about corruption incredibly binary,” Olver said. “There’s this tendency to sweeping generalisations where anything — even a minor finding in an audit report — is deemed to be corrupt. Whereas a whole lot of other stuff that goes on right in front of our noses, day in and day out, because it involves people we’re biased towards, we don’t describe as corrupt.

“I, for a long time, tried to suspend my judgement about what’s corrupt and what’s not, and looked at the nature of the deals [in Cape Town] that underpin all of this. And pay attention to their lineage. How far back to these modes of interaction and involvement go?

“Local government’s a fertile terrain to do that in. The tax base is, basically, the property rates system. And municipalities are directly incentivised to grow the value of the properties in their jurisdiction because it grows their taxes. It’s been like this for 150 years.

“I do quite deliberately try and deepen the debate. The discipline of writing a book is that you’ve got to force yourself to articulate what you’re trying to say in very clear forms that everyone can access and understand. Which is not to say it’s about simplifying it.”

Not that it’s simplistic to say a nation doesn’t get only the government it deserves — it also gets the opposition it merits.

“I think we’re dealing with a systemic failure across our political system as a whole,” Olver said. “There were moments in the fall-out with De Lille when the DA [Democratic Alliance] could’ve chosen a different path, before the different factions sort of dug themselves in and embarked on trench warfare.

“The more right wing group basically decided to go for broke. They weren’t just going to get rid of Patricia, they were going to undertake a purge that would involve a right wing shift.

“And Patricia herself failed because she was this hubristic, ultimately very narcissistic politician who was obsessed with power and ruled by fear — and who I don’t think was prepared to do some of the hard legwork in building coalitions. If she was really committed to her non-racial city that was spatially integrated, there was so much more she could have done.

“But she went to war with whole swathes of the city that she needed if she was genuine about her social transformation programme. She overplayed her hand in the most terrible way.

“The planners who would’ve been natural allies for her in driving her agenda; she liquidates them. The housing department was full of very progressive, technically very competent people; she liquidated them.

“Even [the City’s executive director for corporate services] Craig Kesson’s ambitious restructuring could have gone in a more positive direction if she hadn’t subverted it with her own patronage appointments and loyalty.”

De Lille became a victim of the DA’s self-harming tendencies despite it having won, under her mayoralty, two-thirds of Cape Town’s vote in the 2016 municipal elections. Two years later she was thrown out of the party.

That proved a harbinger of the meltdown that cost Mmusi Maimane his leadership in October and exhumed Helen Zille to, as the new federal council chair, preside over the DA’s imminent great leap backwards into identity politics. And all because the Freedom Front Plus siphoned off some of the reactionary white vote in the general elections in May. The next time the DA calls itself a home for liberals, liberals should sue for defamation.

“We desperately need a decent opposition in this country,” Olver said. “What played out [in the DA] nationally has been an almost carbon copy of the Cape Town battle, where once again the neo-cons dug in. This is a really about accountability for the 2019 electoral losses. They used that issue to effect a comprehensive party-wide purge and a drift to the right. The neo-cons are incredibly effective at pulling the DA back to a particular ideological position on the back of genuine mistakes made by other, more non-racially inclined leaders.”

Politicians will have another chance to improve their performance when they tackle another looming water crisis, this time in Johannesburg.

“Joburg has no water resources other than the poisoned water underground, and I think we’re really in the dwang. The only way you’re going to be able to manage it is by cutting water consumption; the demand-side management stuff.

“If push comes to shove I think they’re going to wheel out exactly the same strategy. So they’ll re-hire Tony Leon’s Resolve Communications, and they’re going to frighten the bejesus out of us until we stop using water. There’s some uncanny resemblance to what happened in Cape Town.”

Olver was half-joking about former DA leader Leon, executive chair of Resolve, which ran Cape Town’s awareness campaign, landing the same contract in Johannesburg. But his laugh was hollow: he’s been shot in this movie before.

“I interview to the point where I’m hearing the same story over and over. Normally that takes place at around 60 interviews. But I can’t tell you when that it because if I’m getting multiple different stories I may go to 80 interviews. Only then will I start analysing it and sequencing it and looking at what to tell out of this whole mass of information.”

He has recently reached that part of the process in what will be his take on Joburg. 

“The story may be less on government and more on what the motor of the city is: not just the private sector but all the way down to the informal economy and the street traders, and everyone just trying to find a place in this complex, dirty, violent crime-infested place that we call home. How much does government really matter? Is that where the real deals are being made? Or are they being made elsewhere?”

The problem with Chippy Olver asking questions is that he will find the answers. Damn the bloody man.

First published by New Frame.

Caster Semenya is a lightning rod for anger at South Africa’s wider, ongoing, deepening failings

No-one can tell Semenya she’s not a woman, and no-one can tell other women it’s fair that they should have to compete against a born drug cheat.

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in London

“VOT is your surname,” Levi, a Joburg ancient as kindly as he is venerable who tells astonishing stories about growing up communist on a kibbutz, asked earnestly after struggling, several times, to say my first name on our first meeting.

“Vice,” I replied, and waited for what I suspected was coming. It did.

“Weiss?!”

“Yes, Vice.”

Levi jolted with joy. His eyes, until then rheumy, leapt with life. He threw up his hands with happiness: “Weiss! Mazeltov! You bloody fucking jew! Just like me!”

I didn’t disabuse him of the notion, not only because that would have been cruel but also because I didn’t want to. Before you take issue with that, try some babka. Chocolate, preferably.

Another question came my way from a woman at a charcuterie stall at Victoria Park market in London’s East End on Sunday: “Are you jewish?”

She asked after our thoroughly Seffrican accents chimed and it transpired we had both come to the other hemisphere from Cape Town; she from Durbanville, me from Sea Point.

Hence her question. Sea Point thrums with jewishness, from venerable ancients like Levi resolutely observing the sabbath, to kitke everywhere on Fridays, bagels everywhere every day, and homemade pastrami at the wonderful Kleinskys Deli in Regent Road, to the shul on Marais Road, a landmark to all.

“No,” I replied to her without thinking too much. But then I got to thinking …

Pieter-Dirk Uys discovered only after the death of his mother, Helga Bassel, in 2003 that she was jewish. Which, technically, makes him jewish. No-one in my family has, to my knowledge, spoken of jewishness in our genes. But my father was adopted. So who can know?

And who can tell Caster Semenya she’s not a woman? No-one. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) denies they are trying to, but they cannot say they are not trying to tell us who they will allow to compete as women in athletics events meant exclusively for women.

The IAAF are attempting to say who — in their purview — is a woman. Or who they will accept as a woman. That’s hopelessly ambitious, because straight answers on the subject, like good men, are hard to find.

Here’s Medicine Net’s stab at it: “The traditional definition of female was ‘an individual of the sex that bears young’ or ‘that produces ova or eggs’. However, things are not so simple today. Female can be defined by physical appearance, by chromosome constitution (see female chromosome complement), or by gender identification.”

What, exactly, is a female chromosome complement? “The large majority of females have a 46, XX chromosome complement (46 chromosomes including two X chromosomes). A minority of females have other chromosome constitutions such as 45,X (45 chromosomes including only one X chromosome) and 47,XXX (47 chromosomes including three X chromosomes).”

Easy for them to say. Not so easy for radical feminist Julie Bindel, who was quoted as saying in the New Statesman in September 2013: “I have no idea what it feels like to be a woman. I don’t do gender. It is harmful and a total social construct that serves to reinforce patriarchy and women’s subordination to men. I wish to eradicate gender — that is the feminist goal — but for now we need to keep the identity of ‘female’ in order to track how our oppression is effecting [sic] us, for example, how many women are raped, underpaid, killed by violent partners, etc.”

Who or what does the Oxford Dictionary recognise as female? “Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilised by male gametes.”

That would seem to question the status of any apparent female who hasn’t yet procreated. Or who has procreated and no longer does, or might not. Reasons of age, health and personal choice don’t appear to matter: it’s all about having children. And when thou art done with that get thyself, barefoot, of course, back to yonder kitchen and chain thyself to the stove. Amen.

Happily, the Caster question is far simpler. Here’s what matters — Semenya is unimpeachably correct to maintain that she is as she has always been naturally a woman and is thus entitled to compete against other women. If those other women can’t keep up, how is that her problem?

Fine. Except if you’re those women, who know that Semenya leaves them in her dust because her body produces more testosterone than theirs. That is patently unfair: they are trying to beat someone who was born a drug cheat.

But how do you fairly instruct Semenya and others like her to wilfully dull the edge nature has given them? The National Basketball Association (NBA) doesn’t ensure the playing field is more or less level by amputating a few centimetres from the legs of taller players.

Thing is, only two of all the 450 players in last season’s NBA were shorter than six feet. Fifteen towered over seven feet. So 433 of them — 96.22% — were within a dozen inches of each other: a more of less level playing field without the need for intervention.

Of course, height doesn’t govern ability on the court, as the superb Isiah Thomas, all five-foot-nine of him, has made abundantly clear. But what will happen when Thomas’ opponents loom at eight feet and have arms as long as he is tall? Welcome, Semenya’s would-be competitors say, to their world.

No less sensible a figure as Martina Navratilova managed to support Semenya and rubbish the cause of transgender athletes all in the same few hundred words in the UK Sunday Times.

Navratilova wondered whether it could “be right to order athletes to take medication” and said she hoped Semenya wins her case on the issue at the Court of Arbitration for Sport. But Navratilova also said that a man could by taking hormones satisfy sport organisations’ requirements to be considered a woman was “insane and … cheating”.

In December, she tweeted: “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women.”

Not so simple, is it? And exponentially less so when all sorts of opportunists have spied a chance to make capital out of Semenya’s situation.

Sports minister Thokozile Xasa reached, shamefully, for the nuclear option: “The world once declared apartheid a crime against human rights. We once more call the world to stand with us as we fight what we believe is a gross violation of human rights.”

Her time would be better spent helping her inept government find ways, nuclear perhaps included, to keep the lights on in failing Mzansi.

In April last year EFF spokesperson Mbuyiseni Ndlozi tried to cover all the bases, albeit mercifully briefly: “The EFF views the action of [the] IAAF as a deliberate, sexist, racist and anti-African attack on our black female champion.”

He forgot to put the LGBTQI community on the list. Maybe they aren’t the bombastic, buffoonish beret brigade’s target market in a country where women are murdered for refusing sexual advances from men.

Cricket South Africa clambered aboard with a release on Friday in which chief executive Thabang Moroe was quoted as saying: “We stand here as the cricket fraternity joining all the voices throughout the world to denounce the IAAF Gender Regulations as an act of discrimination against women in sport.

“We state categorically and emphatically that women like Caster, who is born with intersex variations, should enjoy the same rights to dignity as all women. We honour, celebrate and recognise the equality of all women in sport.

“ … we call on all morally astute global citizens to rally behind Caster and vocally join in advocating for her right to continue competing at the highest level.

“This attempt at systematically ostracising potential and talent should be condemned in the strongest terms. Together, let’s hit gender discrimination for six!”

CSA should concentrate on tasking the “morally astute global citizens” in their ranks to ensure the women who play for the national team are paid as much as the men. That’s what equality and dignity mean.

Would Semenya’s cause be so vociferously supported if she wasn’t so successful? Or if her success didn’t override the gag reflex of a deeply conservative society that has next to no compassion for those who differ from the mob-like majority?

Or if more black South Africans were by now living the kind of lives they earned the hardest way, by defeating apartheid? Or if apartheid had been eradicated instead of entrenched on economic lines by an evilly cynical ruling class ? Or if this wasn’t an election year? Or if the bellicose, bilious centre-right mess the ANC have become had a clue how to be the inspired revolutionaries they once were and need to be again if South Africa is to have a future worth having? Or if the hopeless misery that is the DA had any ideas of their own beyond flaccidly attacking the ANC? Or if the EFF weren’t such an unfunny joke? Or if Semenya was white?

We can’t really know who Semenya is. But we know what: a lightning rod for the coming storm.

And so to Twickenham. And back. And quite some trip it was

IMG_1875

LAND OF HOPE AND GLORY – Twickenham, where all sorts go to watch rugby. And much more … (Photograph: Telford Vice) 

There were promises of “Hog Roast” and “Borough’s Best Burger”, and a place that advertised, simply, powerfully and oddly aptly, “BRAAI”. Only £7 for a boerewors roll. That’s around R140.

Times Select

TELFORD VICE in London

TAKE the Central line two stops from Bethnal Green to Bank, then the Waterloo and City line one stop to Waterloo, then, from platform 17, the overground to Twickenham. Five stops.

All the while channel your inner V. S. Naipaul going to Lord’s in 1963 to watch Frank Worrell, the finest of all cricketers because he was so much more than a cricketer, lead West Indies against England.

Naipaul, owner of a Booker Prize, the Trinity Cross — the highest honour achievable in his native Trinidad and Tobago — and a British knighthood, died in August as one of the most celebrated writers on the migrant experience.

And there he was on a London bus 55 years ago, en route to the cricket with his ears wide open.

“If Collie [beloved West Indies allrounder Collie Smith] did not dead … He used to jump out and hit [England fast bowler Brian] Statham for six and thing, you know,” Naipaul reported faithfully, along with many other overhearings of his fellow travellers’ views.

Conrad Hunte, whose patience at the crease made Kepler Wessels look like Jonty Rhodes, was part of that West Indies team. Hunte came into my life when he was a working with the then United Cricket Board’s development programme and I was a young reporter. I knew him for just a few days, but he left an indelible impression as a person so decent you felt improved simply by being in the same room as him. He was, I was not surprised to learn, a member of Moral Re-Armament.

It was Hunte who sparked what became my obsession with Worrell. His eyes blazed and his voice danced when he spoke of his skipper. If Worrell could light a fire in someone as inspirational as Hunte, I thought, what kind of man must he have been? I was not disappointed in the answers I found, which lift me up to this day.   

As upright and solid as Hunte was as a human being and an opening batsman, he wasn’t always a favourite with the crowd, some of whom — Naipaul wrote — felt he was “taking this Moral Re-Armament a little too seriously. He do not want to hit the ball because the leather comes from an animal.”

That followed Hunte batting for more than two hours for his 44 in the Lord’s Test, which was drawn with West Indies needing just one wicket and England only six runs.

Naipaul, who watched the whole match and had plenty to think about on the mid-match rest day, wrote: “Day after day I have left Lord’s emotionally drained. What other game could have stretched hope and anxiety over six days?”

I would be at Twickenham for only a few hours to report on the Springboks’ match against England, and I do not fancy myself as any kind of Naipaul. But, if I’ve learnt anything writing about sport it’s that, as Naipaul illustrated so vividly, the story isn’t only on the field.

The three tube stations were their usual, bustling Saturday afternoon selves, strewn with the hither and thither of people on a myriad different missions. But once I was aboard the overground I felt part of a common purpose.

The dress code was caps and beanies (the odd hat), rucksacks, scarves, warm jackets, jeans, and shoes sensible and sturdy enough for grandstand clambering and that you knew could get slopped with beer.   

“Bollocks to Brexit” a large commercially produced sign read as we eased out of Waterloo, soon followed by “Brexit is bonkers”.

The fella sat next to me, a bearded, bobbed redhead of a 30-something blessed with a spaniel’s face, didn’t notice. He was too busy, between bites of a supermarket sandwich, reading his phone as well as last night’s Evening Standard. 

Across the way two luminously pasty, shaven-headed Yorkshiremen — they sounded, to me, like Jonny Bairstow — prattled away about work.

“Twickenham,” read the next noteworthy sign, and soon the hundreds on our train joined the phalanx oozing out of the station to become part of the 80 369 who would be in their seat come kick-off.

A roadside preacher armed with a loudhailer — “Confess your sins!” — and a scribbled bit of cardboard — “Jesus is Lord!” — had about as much impact on the passing parade as the Brexit signs had had on the sandwiching spaniel.

More attractive were promises of “Hog Roast” and “Borough’s Best Burger”, and a place that advertised, simply, powerfully and oddly aptly, “BRAAI”. Only £7 for a boerewors roll. That’s around R140.

The grey mass of the stadium loomed — Twickenham looks elegant from the inside, but from the outside it’s an ugly block of concrete — along with a bloke from the Democratic Alliance. At least, he was wearing a DA T-shirt.

He had enough gel in his hair to keep the flags above the stands as stiff as Cecil John Rhodes’ upper lip. He also had Rhodes’ colonial smugness. Call it what it is: the plastic surgery of privilege.

A woman whose blackness shone out of the paleness all around, and wearing a South Africa flag around her shoulders, was about to pass him when he pounced, proffering pamphlets: “Ma’am! Do you live in the UK?” Happily, she had a mean sidestep and left him in her wake, his eyes as stuck as his hair.

And so into the outer shell of Twickenham itself, a confusing tangle of lifts that don’t go all the way to the top floor, staircases hidden behind doors, and concourses that seem to lead to nothing except more lifts and staircases.

“Excuse me,” I asked I don’t know how many stewards, “how do I get to the pressbox, please?”

All of them looked at me as if I had wanted to know the way to El Dorado. More than once, they answered my question with one of their own, accompanied with a look that said they had no clue such a place existed: “Pressbox?” 

The game came and went in its usual flash — if you’ve reported on a rugby match, chances are you’ve also gone home and turned on the television to find out what the hell happened out there — and it was time to make the return journey.

I had been warned by more seasoned Twickenham reporters that getting back could be an ordeal of trains congested with the most awful kind of English ponces who stink, if you’re lucky, of beer and, if you’re not so lucky, vomit.

“It’s better when England lose,” one of my colleagues said. Of course, England won — with not a little help from the bungling, bumbling Boks themselves. And a referee who deserves to be forced to listen to the man from the DA for at least 80 minutes. 

The trains were indeed filled with sloshed spectators. But no-one stank of anything. And the natives, no doubt softened by their team’s undeserved victory, were friendly.

In fact the most interesting occupants of the carriage I was in were two women in Springbok gear. One held dearly a half-litre bottle of cider. The other did the same, and also clutched a beer.

They stood in the aisle, swaying slightly, no doubt because of the movement of the train, and engaging in uninhibited conversation.

“He asked me to get him, like, £20 worth of weed,” one said. “But he’s a ‘lej’ boss — he takes such good care of me.”

She didn’t have quite such favourable things to say about someone else: “That chick! Don’t call me out on my shit and then you dunno how to catch the fuckin’ tube!”

Her companion looked increasingly uncomfortable as the journey wore on, and as Waterloo hove out of the night and into brutally bright view she revealed why: “Right now, I don’t care; I would piss in a bucket.”

Times are different to when people dressed up to go to the cricket, where giants of the age in every sense — like Worrell and Hunte — would perform for our entertainment.

But I had to wonder what Naipaul might have made of what I saw and heard on Saturday. And about what he did see and hear and didn’t write about in 1963.