Themba’s Head
Themba’s Head scored a princely total of two reviews, one of them anodyne and the other one a declaration of war. For the record here they are:
Teetering on a Soapbox
Phil Murray – The Cape Times
“Remember good old Beckett’s Trek way back before the Travel Channel backpacked onto our television sets? What a great South African show that was, and charmed by little memories of Beckett’s chatty, warm manner and cunning perceptions. I snaffled up Themba's Head. Now I have a new kaleidoscope through which to see Mr Beckett.
Beckett has outlined his political viewpoint in this book, and presents his idea in a conversational textbook with little pictures, and synopses from his other books, Frontline, Permanent Peace and The Fallacy of Heroes. Now, not having read any of his other books I was interested to read that Beckett seems to be able to criticise himself, and laugh at himself.
He refers to past reviews of his book, sometimes as being overly gushing, and other times spiteful. But the crux is that this book is Beckett attempting to enunciate his hopes for, and reservations about democracy, and what that means for real South Africans hammering out their identity in our start-up country.
So it’s a serious piece of non-fiction although written swiftly and lightly. He is honing ideas already outlined in his other books.
Beckett is a witty man and uses a fictional Themba to challenge our democracy, once calling our constitution a “despot’.
Themba is “happy for you to leave activism to others as much as you leave carpentry or stamp-collecting to others”.
But Themba is really just a strange medium or ideal Beckett uses to challenge clichéd political correctness, and create a new anti-hero. This is a strange book that teeters on a soapbox with good intentions.”
_______________
Ja no fine. I didn’t know that Themba was an anti-hero, or Frontline was a book, and would not myself have identified Themba’s comment on activism as the central feature. But so be it, I’ve done worse than teeter on soapboxes with good intentions.
Then came…
Don’t waste your money
By Jan-Jan Joubert, in Beeld
“This book contains ideas on how to improve South Africa’s democracy. In short, Beckett thinks our democracy is not participative enough. There is too much bureaucracy, too little say for local communities and too much power held by party bosses over ordinary politicians, so they dance to the tune of headquarters rather than of voters.
He proposes as the alternative that authority gets devolved to the most local level imaginable.
In his distinctive pithy way, and with the conviction of a political evangelist or missionary, he advances the case that all sorts of problems will thus be resolved – it will lead to negotiations between diverse interest-groups (you support me on the new hospital in return for my support on speedbump policy, etcetera) and will reduce the possibility of revolution because more people will have a share in the political process.
There will be enormous numbers of small elections, which will accustom people to the ballot being secret and thus lead to the end of intimidation.
Peace is then our lot, says Beckett.
He does this all in the first six pages.
For the last 134 pages he amplifies his theory.
In the end this book fails for, in my view, a number of reasons.
The theory does not take into account that devolution in South Africa means perpetuating inequality. We don’t have the luxury to form islands. We have to bear each other.
Secondly, such a thing would be not just tedious, but ridiculously expensive. Given the inequalities in the country, the well-off can conduct far better campaigns than the poor, especially on local level.
That, briefly, as far as substance goes.
Regarding style, all the clever wordplay in the world cannot disguise that this is actually a sermon of 140 pages.
And while some people may find the use of Themba as an obvious alter ego entertaining, for me it was woolly.
On close inspection, the book surely has a market among politically Bohemian thinkers, but I can’t in honesty recommend that you spend your money on this.”
________________
There’s your savings advice from Jan-Jan Joubert of Beeld (same damn Beeld I was so polite about here): don’t waste your money on a Themba’s Head.
Happily you don’t need to, here it is, free of charge.
Of me and Jan-Jan, at least one of us has big brain-damage problems. I’d LOVE to hear a view from someone who reads the book as well as his review.
My case is: this guy read 6 pages, of the 140 he purports to review.
It’s not possible to read the book and say that it’s about devolution. What is possible is to read the first 6 pages, find the notion of a comprehensive democracy hard to get your mind around, and console yourself by saying “ah, this must be devolution, again.” Do I or do I not make a federal case of why devolution is applauded everywhere but practised nowhere? (Because it benefits minorities at the expense of the majority, is why).
“Participative”? Ou Jan-Jan is “reviewing” one of the shortest books known to a bookshelf. Short as it is, it says several times that its proposal is not about participation. Jan-Jan writes “Beckett thinks our democracy is not participative enough”.
“Expensive”? Why would you have those watchdogs if they weren’t cutting waste out of your taxes?
“Tedious”? As in compulsory voting, which I take time to explain will not happen?
Best or worst: “perpetuating inequality”. I know critics who skim-read half a book and pronounce on it by instinct. I’ve been one, though a long time back, but even then I drew the line at “failing” a book I hadn’t read. If JJ disagrees that Themba’s system makes the poor better off than Left policies do, we could discuss. But he doesn’t notice my central case: the poor person’s vote has clout, the rich person acquires a built-in interest in the poor ceasing to be poor, radicals pull voters Leftward while conservatives lure voters Rightwards and all majorities baulk at disrupting their own lives by pushing other communities too far.
I half understand Jan. Lots of Political Editors and their ilk get ratty. Where is the substantiation? Where are the citations? Where is the pedigree? Who is this peasant to imply they’ve missed a trick? They look for their chance to junk the book.
I helped, by misjudgement. On Page 6 I overstress the simplicity of what’s to follow (to allay the suspicion that gimmickry lies in wait). I’d thought the reader was bound to explore how I could make such big claims. But Jan-Jan took me literally. I see his thought-bubble: “that was easy, I can have a review in Sent Items by tea-time”.
Dubbeljan is right that it’s a sermon, though. He saw through me, there, all right. And he does give me an echo, a thing I hunger for. Perhaps it’s greedy to want an echo of what one actually said.
Subscribe to this comment's feed