Open letter to the minister responsible for arts and culture
In the wake of deep dissatisfaction in the arts community regarding the role played by the Department of Arts and Culture, the following open letter has been sent to the minister:
Dear Minister Ben Ngubane
In less than a year, we will mark the first decade of democracy in our country. However, recent events in the arts sector have spurred us as artists and others who attempt to make our living in the arts, to write this open letter to you, for we are deeply concerned at the gradual undermining of democracy in our sector.
Some of our colleagues have decided not to sign this letter. Not because they disagree with its content, but because they fear potential victimisation as a result. We understand and respect their decision. For some of us have had first hand experience of the personal and adverse consequences of speaking out on different subjects. And all of us have witnessed recently what happens to individuals in the arts who speak out on matters that affect the sector.
Nearly ten years after the ending of apartheid and the birth of our exemplary constitution, we are deeply saddened and troubled that artists are reluctant to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of expression, because they fear victimisation - the potential loss of public funding, potential loss of work opportunities and general marginalisation.
We write this public letter and sign our names to it because we believe that we all - artists too - have a responsibility to build and defend our democracy. Pointing out anti-democratic actions, expressing our viewpoints publicly and holding accountable those who make decisions that affect our lives and livelihood - these are themselves acts of democracy. We believe that the best way to promote and protect democracy, is to practise it.
We were extremely excited by the dawn of a democratic dispensation. The apartheid era was characterised by overt forms of censorship, by the banning of literature, theatre and music that were critical of the regime, by the allocation of resources to institutions and companies that did not challenge the hegemony of the apartheid government, by widespread self-censorship among those artists who were dependent on public funding.
Given these experiences, artists actively lobbied for new policies through the visionary Arts and Culture Task Group (ACTAG) process that you initiated. Policies that would encourage and protect freedom of creative expression. Polices that would have public resources allocated at arm's length from government to ensure that artists would not be intimidated into self-censorship by the fear of not accessing funding for their work. Policies that would have people engaged in the arts making or influencing decisions about matters that directly affect them.
All of these were there at the beginning of our democracy. We were extremely hopeful that these policies would usher in a new era for the arts in our country. But recent events, particularly around the National Arts Council, have left us deeply disturbed and concerned about the nature of democracy within our sector.
First, Minister, you changed the law that allowed the boards of publicly-funded institutions (that you appointed) to elect their own chairpersons, so that now you appoint the Chairpersons of these boards. We do not understand the rationale for this change, but we know the consequences of it: chairpersons thus appointed are seen to be direct channels of political influence within such boards. Because they are politically appointed, other board members are intimidated and are reluctant to challenge them, giving these Chairpersons enormous power. And because they owe their appointment to you as the Minister, such Chairpersons would be inclined to defend and support your actions rather than serve the broader interests of the sector or the interests of the institution.
This reminds us of the apartheid era where government appointed the boards and the chairpersons of publicly-funded bodies. In some cases - like the former performing arts councils - these chairpersons played a censorial role in banning plays that they thought were too critical of the regime. We are deeply concerned that the Cultural Laws Amendment Act giving you the power to appoint chairpersons of publicly-funded institutions takes us back to an era of informal censorship and political intimidation. While we may have much respect for the individuals that are sometimes appointed as chairpersons, we fear that they will be placed in unnecessarily conflicted situations between their allegiance to those politicians who appoint them, and those whom they are required to serve and protect.
Secondly, we have noted and are deeply concerned by the way in which Marilyn Martin, a member of the previous board of the NAC, has been excluded from the new board despite her being duly elected to serve on this board. The NAC Act required the previous board to elect three of its members to serve on the next board to provide continuity. The previous board duly elected John Kani, Lisa Combrinck and Marilyn Martin to serve on the new board.
In a subsequent radio interview, you stated that Marilyn Martin had been excluded as she is a civil servant. But she is not employed by any level of government. She is employed in a museum governed by the Cultural Institutions Act that now also governs the Market Theatre, whose managing trustee, John Kani, you re-appointed to the new Board. If Marilyn Martin is a civil servant because of the Cultural Institutions Act, then John Kani would be too. The case of Ms Combrinck is even more perplexing as she is employed by the Ministry of Communications as a civil servant, yet you have re-appointed her to the new Board.
A few years ago, Ms Martin questioned your ring-fencing of R5m of the grant of R25m made to the NAC that you wanted to use to fund projects as you deemed fit. This led to disciplinary charges being laid against her, which were eventually dropped.
Since reasons for Ms Martin's exclusion from the new Board are contradictory, we cannot but conclude that her exclusion is based on her past criticism of ministerial decisions. This is deeply concerning. Today it is Marilyn Martin. Tomorrow it may be someone else.
Which brings us to our third point of concern. We have taken note of whom you have chosen not to include on the NAC from the shortlist of fifteen names submitted to you by the Interviewing Panel. As is your right, you selected twelve of these but we have noted that at least two of the three whom you did not select, happen to be individuals who have been outspoken on issues of concern within the arts sector. It is not as if these individuals are incompetent or do not have the trust of their peers or that their respective provinces would be overly represented in the NAC were they to be appointed. In fact, their exclusion means that the under-resourced Limpopo Province does not have a national representative and that the active Western Cape province only has one national representative against the four of KwaZulu Natal and the five of Gauteng.
In the context of Ms Martin's exclusion from the Board, it would appear that these individuals have also been excluded because of their known independence, and because of their outspokenness. This is deeply disturbing for us as it sends out a clear signal that you would prefer an NAC that is compliant rather than one that is rigorously independent and which is what the arts community lobbied for. It also sends out a signal that to be outspoken and independently-minded is not tolerated, and this compromises the very premise of creative engagement - the freedom to express oneself on any issue of concern, without the fear of potential victimisation.
But it is not only the impact of recent decisions on freedom of expression within our sector that concern us. It is also the poor implementation and management of sound policies that then have direct and adverse consequences for our creative practices and livelihood.
The recent sit-in at the NAC by fifty artists to protest against the late decisions regarding NAC funding that affected their participation in the National Arts Festival in Grahamstown, is a case in point. The new Board of the NAC was to be in place by 1 April 2003 and funding decisions were to have been made known by 30 April. However, the appointment of the Board - the direct responsibility of you and your department - was only made in mid-May. The new Board's Exco could only meet a mere three weeks before the start of the Festival to decide on funding applications. You declined to act on a proposal that the life of the previous Board simply be extended by a month to approve the funding decisions when it became clear that the new Board would not be in place by the time promised by your Department. Similarly, the appointment of the Board of the National Film and Video Foundation was delayed by more than five months, prejudicing the work and livelihood of a host of film-makers, who had applied for grants to the NFVF.
Unfortunately, those who have pointed to these deficiencies within your department have been lambasted. Rather than address the issues of capacity that have led to this state of affairs, it appears that the messengers who have raised the alarm have been targeted for criticism.
No-one is on a campaign to undermine you, or to attack you personally as the Minister. But you are responsible for making decisions that impact directly on the sector. You are the political head of a department that manages policy and structures that have direct impact on our lives, our livelihood and our creative practices. As we live in a constitutional democracy, you are accountable for these decisions. And when such decisions or actions do not make sense or when they are questionable or affect us adversely, you should expect us to ask questions. That is our right and our democratic responsibility.
We form organisations to represent us. We elect leaders whom we trust to represent us. It is wrong to single out individuals who speak on our behalf. While this public statement has been coordinated by various organisations, we voluntarily associate ourselves with it to make it clear that the issues raised are of concern to all of us, whether we belong to organisations or not. We call upon our colleagues - artists, designers, administrators, educators, technicians, directors, choreographers, writers, etc - to join us in registering their support for this statement, for we need to stand together to build, sustain and defend our sector.
We know that we have incredible artistic talent in our country, talent that can hold its own against any international benchmarks. We are convinced that there is huge potential for the arts to make a contribution to the economy, to our country's image and to the quality of lives of all of our people. We believe that artists have an important role to play in building our nascent democracy.
Being independently-minded doesn't mean that we are necessarily anti-government. Taking issue with some aspect of government policy doesn't mean that we are unpatriotic. Exercising our democratic right to freedom of expression should not exclude, marginalize, victimise us. It is our role, our jobs, our constitutional right to hold up a mirror to society, to explore and point out contradictions, to challenge the status quo. Not because we have a monopoly on or an inside channel to truth, but because the exercise of creative thinking and political independence allow us to think outside of accepted paradigms, and in doing so, to help us all to move forward by posing questions, raising debates, offering alternatives.
We appeal to you to seriously consider what we have written. We implore you to rescind some of the decisions that you have made. We request that you engage with our sector from which you appear to have become increasingly alienated, to seek solutions and to improve dialogue between the arts and culture community and relevant official structures in order to realise the potential that we believe the arts have for our society.
We ask that you act urgently and transparently.
For nothing less than the credibility of your Ministry and democracy in the arts are at stake.
Yours in the arts
Bill Flynn
David Kramer
Vincent Mantsoe
Pippa Skotnes
Nico Luwes
Gladys Agulhas
John Smith
Alfred Hinkel
Virginia McKenny
Royston Stoffels
Jayesperi Moopen
Malcolm Payne
Mzwakhe Sticks Mdidimba
Zayd Minty
Storm Janse van Rensburg
Peter Terry
David April
Stephen Hobbs/Trinity Session
Mark Fleishman
Smal Ndaba
Albert Maritz
Andrew Verster
Mike van Graan
Themi Venturas
Andries Oliphant
David Gouldie
Deon Opperman
Jay Pather
Lien Botha
Nicky Rebelo
Mark Hawkins
Nise Malange
Paul Edmunds
Sarah Roberts
Phyllis Klotz
Marthinus Basson
Kathy Grundlingh
Lynn Maree
Boyzie Cekwana
Pieter Dirk Uys
