In recent years, as peace between Israelis and Palestinians has remained cruelly elusive, scholars and activists have increasingly turned to South African history and politics to make sense of the situation. In the early 1990s, both South Africa and Israel began negotiating with their colonized populations. South Africans saw the state was democratized and black South Africans gained formal legal equality. Palestinians, on the other hand, won neither freedom nor equality, and today Israel remains a settler-colonial state. Despite these different outcomes, the transitions of the last twenty years have produced surprisingly similar socioeconomic changes in both growing inequality, racialized poverty, and advanced strategies for securing the powerful and policing the racialized poor. Neoliberal Apartheid explores this paradox through an analysis of (de)colonization and neoliberal racial capitalism.
After a decade of research in the Johannesburg and Jerusalem regions, Andy Clarno presents here a detailed ethnographic study of the precariousness of the poor in Alexandra township, the dynamics of colonization and enclosure in Bethlehem, the growth of fortress suburbs and private security in Johannesburg, and the regime of security coordination between the Israeli military and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. The first comparative study of the changes in these two areas since the early 1990s, the book addresses the limitations of liberation in South Africa, highlights the impact of neoliberal restructuring in Palestine, and argues that a new form of neoliberal apartheid has emerged in both contexts.
A very good study by a very confused social scientist. The author analyzes the contemporary Palestinian and South African regimes and calls them "neoliberal apartheid" rejimes that are based on extreme poverty, racial marginalization, securitization and constant crisis. He does this not only through an extensive literature review, but also using his interesting observations, interviews and focus group discussions from the field.
But. Is there a kind of unwritten rule for the social scientists who are working on South Africa which says, "no matter what the conclusions of your study are, you SHALL praise and compliment the so-called achievements of the post-apartheid rejime"?
Becaus this sounds ridiculous:
"Inequality in South Africa is more severe today than it was under formal apartheid. According to the World Bank, postapartheid South Africa is now the single most unequal country in the world... white elites still own the vast majority of land and most Black South Africans remain landless... With vast inequality and racialized poverty , South Africa has high rates of violent crime. But crime is concentrated in poor Black communities."
"The most sophisticated strategies involve a form of “low intensity guerrilla warfare” to control the presence of Black South Africans in suburban space. With a highly contested relationship to the state, these “legalized mafias” have generated a fragmented patchwork of urban governance."
(Somewhere else in the book)
"The partial nature of decolonization in South Africa should not detract from the tremendous achievements of the freedom struggle. By dismantling the settler regime, Black South Africans ended the violence of colonization and established a democratic state with formal legal equality."
At first I thought the author was trolling me. But no, he really means that. Blacks are starving, massacred, incarcerated, their houses are raided by the private security companies whose current managers were the reckless torturers and executioners of the old apartheid regime back then. Oh, but the "achievements" of the peaceful democratic state.
TR
Güney Afrika ve Filistin'deki çağdaş siyasal ve ekonomik düzeni inceleyen kafası karışık bir çalışma. 1990'larda Filistin İsraille yaptığı Oslo görüşmeleriyle, Güney Afrika'daki ırkçı rejim ise "apartheid" rejiminin sözde sona ermesiyle demokratikleşmişti. Yazara göreyse buralarda yeni kurulmuş olan düzen bir "neoliberal apartheid" rejimi.
Bu rejimin dört unsuru olduğunu tespit ediyor yazar: Aşırı yoksulluk, ırka dayalı marjinalleştirme, çok kapsamlı bir güvenlik rejimi ve sürekli kriz. Sonra da iki ülkede bunların kendini nasıl gösterdiğini yalnızca literatüre dayanarak değil, kendi yaptığı mülakatlarla da açıklıyor.
Amerikan Sosyoloji Derneği'nin en iyi çalışma ödüllerini almış bir kitap. Fakat herhalde halk hareketlerinin tasfiyesi üzerine makale/kitap yazan her yazarın ödemesi gereken bir bedel var. Ülkenin içler acısı halini anlattıktan sonra "ama apartheid kalktı, çok iyi oldu, aşırı güzel oldu" demek şart. Clarno da G.Afrika'daki apartheid'ın güya sonlanmasından sonra siyahların düştüğü insanı ağlatacak kadar sefil durumu anlattıktan sonra, her bölümde mutlaka bir iki paragrafını bu dönüşümün ne kadar iyi olduğunu tekrarlamaya ayırmış.
Ortaya şöyle komik manzaralar çıkıyor:
"Bugün Güney Afrika'daki eşitsizlik resmi apartheid döneminde olduğundan daha ciddi boyutlarda. Dünya Bankası'na göre Güney Afrika artık dünyanın en eşitsiz ülkesi... Eşitsizliğin ve ırka dayalı yoksulluğun muazzam boyutlara ulaştığı Güney Afrika'daki şiddet içeren suç oranı çok yüksek. Ancak suç yoksul siyah toplulukların yaşadığı bölgelere yoğunlaşmış durumda." (s.33, 36).
(birkaç sayfa sonra)
"Tüm bunlar Güney Afrika'nın olağanüstü başarılarını görmemizi engellemesin. Siyah Güney Afrikalılar sömürgeciliğin şiddetini sona erdirip, yasal eşitliğe dayalı bir demokratik devlet kurdular" (s. 39).
Ya bi git. Bizim barış sürecinde de hortlamıştı bu bakış açısı.
Illuminates the relationships between various analytical frameworks - settler colonialism, racial capitalism, etc. Powerful argument for the limited nature of decolonization in democratic South Africa. Situations Palestine broadly and Oslo specifically within a neoliberal context. Worth reading, though not likely to break new ground for people who are deeply familiar with either South Africa or Palestine/Israel.
Very interesting proposition for a conception of Neoliberal apartheid to address the limits of the prohibition of apartheid in international law. Well-written, though academic rather than geared towards the general public.