A Protest For Life

Why the South African student protests are the perfect spark for students around the world.

In the last week, the world has witnessed South African university students stand together to say that they will not accept the proposed fee increases. For those in the UK, these protests hark back to British students own days of protests when, in 2010, they also stood together to fight the fee rise. They were, however, unsuccessful. But maybe with South Africa’s stand taking the world by storm, it’s the perfect opportunity to do the same elsewhere.

The question over whether tertiary education should be a right or a privilege is one that has been asked frequently as universities the world over impose higher fees. Students in Britain, Chile, Hong Kong, Quebec and others have taken to the streets to demand subsidized, cheaper and even free tertiary education. And now South Africa has joined them.

Just as they did in London 2010, things have turned violent. Police clashing with student protesters, tear gas and rubber bullets fired and journalists flocking to hear the stories. And yet, the situation seems more positive in South Africa than it ever did in the UK.  Pressure is mounting on the South African government, from within and without, to propose a solution that would help to subsidize fees.

I spent 3 years at the University of Manchester and witnessed calls for students to rally against fees and proposed hikes. But the response was limited: compared to South Africa, it was like a village protest against a proposed change to the church roof. Certainly in 2010, things were much grander as over 30 000 students marched through London’s streets, but London was the focal point, whereas in South Africa, the protests are spread through various cities, and are having a much larger impact.

Perhaps it is because things are so much more desperate for South African students, for whom the cycle of poverty is more familiar than it is for those students in Britain, who have the comfort of benefits to cushion their fall. In a country where over 12 million people live in extreme poverty and many more in some form of poverty, the proposed fee increases on 10% to 12% mean that many poorer black students will be excluded from tertiary education, a tool so important in pulling people out of poverty. Another factor lies in student loans which are not as widely accessible to students in South Africa as they are in the UK, where most British students are entitled to a loan. In South Africa, it is not so much a protest for lower fees as it is a protest for life.

So with more on the line, maybe South Africa is the perfect environment for students to stand up and say enough is enough. If the value of tertiary education is greater to poverty stricken students there, perhaps the impact can be much larger. But more importantly what can success in the South African protests mean for the rest of the world?

Maybe this is just the perfect spark students worldwide need, to make them to go back to their governments with an answer to that heavily debated question: that answer being that tertiary education is not a privilege but a right.

The Migrant Crisis: a gigantic solution for a gigantic problem

They are calling it the largest mass migration of people since the Second World War and it is without the doubt, the biggest issue currently facing Europe. The apparent solution: to allow each European country to take a specific number of refugees.

Of course, we cannot sit back, close the borders and ignore the plight of these thousands. From countries such as Syria, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea and more, many of these people have left conflict-ridden zones in search of peace. Turning them away would be tantamount to executing them ourselves.

Yet at the same time, Europe cannot support the weight of the millions who will come if they know they can find a better, safer life there. For now, each country is prepared to take a specific amount but how many can Europe really support? Taking these refugees is humane, and it's a solution, but it's a short term one. Europe cannot take the whole world.

What is the long-term answer then? How can Europe help these people and at the same time turn them away? The answer surely lies at the source of the problem: the places that they are fleeing from.

There are two major reasons why people are heading to Europe. Security and economics, and sometimes both. Europe offers stability and prosperity. And yet the migrants undertake a treacherous and frequently fatal journey to reach the supposed Nirvana that is Europe. With this in mind, if the potential migrants were offered some form of peace and economic prosperity in their own land, it seems likely that they would not leave.

The solution then is to create both practical and economic stability and safety. Easier said than done. But with Europe’s resources, it is possible. I call it country twinning. For now, let us limit this to Africa.

The idea would be that each European country would be twinned with a specific African country and challenged, with that country, to create infrastructure, peace and economic safety that would encourage the citizens of the African country to stay. They would aim to create a peaceful and stable environment, and economically, to develop infrastructure and a basic welfare system based upon those that exist in Europe today which provide subsidised healthcare, education etc.

This idea could take place on various levels: at the top, the specific European government would work with the specific African government to reach these goals, helping financially and practically. At the bottom, citizens of the European country could be encouraged to spend one year in the twinned nation helping to build the infrastructure, develop the local inhabitants skills, and to use their own, for example, medical staff/students to work in hospitals etc.

The danger of this idea is obvious. Too strict on the part of the European country and it looks like neo-colonialism. Not strict enough and the endemic of corruption may prevent progress. For example, Germany gives Chad money to build infrastructure and it disappears down the pipeline of corruption. But if Germany takes that money and directs every part of the development, then it looks colonialist. The answer lies in cooperation and transparency. For example, Chad knows how many hospitals it wants but Germany can offer guidance on how best to run those hospitals. Furthermore, as part of the deal, every penny given by Germany and spent must be accounted for by Germany.

Yes, this scheme is filled with more challenges than can be imagined, and yes, maybe it is a complicated form of babysitting. But the important aspect is that there is something in it for all involved: a long-term solution to the migrant crisis for Europe and development for Africa. And that's just for one continent. Imagine if you could apply this around the world- ‘More Economically Developed Countries’ twinned with ‘Less Economically Developed Countries’.

Is it naive to imagine such vast, global cooperation? Perhaps. But in a world slowly spinning out of control, growing more divided and selfish and creating even bigger and crazier problems, maybe what’s needed is an even bigger and crazier solution. Country twinning may not sound catchy or impressive but maybe, just maybe, with a little imagination, it’s not only plausible but also possible.

Je Suis Charlie vs. I am Baga

The Argument for Africa.

“Je suis Charlie”. Three simple words that enlisted the world in showing solidarity in the face of the terror attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine. Thousands marched in cities across the globe to deliver a message to the terrorists: that they shall not be successful in their attempts to cow the West.

“Je suis Baga”. “Je suis Borno”. “Je suis Nigeria”. None of these sentences were uttered around the world in defiance of terror. None of these encouraged thousands to march in a show of opposition. And yet, there was another attack that same week as the Paris events. This attack was similar in nature, committed by an Islamist terror group. The only difference? The number of casualties. Paris: 12. Baga, Nigeria: Anywhere between 700 to 2000 dead, an estimate put forward by Amnesty International.

The attack in Baga took place on the 8th of January, the day after the Charlie Hebdo attack. Boko Haram, the militant Islamist group in control of much of North Eastern Nigeria, attacked the town after overrunning the nearby military base. They torched much of it, and killed hundreds of the inhabitants. The population of Baga, previously estimated at 10 000, was described as “virtually non-existent” in the wake of the raid.

The media coverage, however, didn’t paint quite the same picture. It took me several days to hear about the attack, and even then it was not from global media corporations such as the BBC, but from a local African website. Meanwhile, television, radio and the internet were collapsing under the weight of analytical reports, angry or confused comments and detailed narration on the Paris attacks and the perpetrators. Baga featured a few minutes of the daily roundup.

This is not to say that what happened in Paris isn’t hugely significant or alarming to the world. The fact that a gun attack took place in the capital city of a country with a top rate security force and intelligence agency and furthermore that the gunmen managed to escape for a period of time, is extremely worrying and harks back to 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings. Also, granted, it was much more difficult to report on the Baga massacre (due to kidnapping fears and bad communication in the area) than it was for the Paris events.

‘It happens all the time over there.’

But when some news does get out that up to 2000 people are massacred, their bodies strewn along the streets, killed for the same ideology that was used in Paris, why isn’t the world leaping to show mass support? Because of the old excuse of “Its Africa, and these things happen all the time there.” Unfortunately one does not need to look far for evidence to support this awful statement: Rwanda, Sudan, DRC, CAR, Somalia... the list goes on.

Just as with the extensive media coverage of Syria whilst a deadly war raged in the DRC uncovered, the world has little interest in the motives for such genocides, putting them down to the consequences of post-colonialism, something the West is keen to forget about.

But the world should worry. If not for the 2000 lying dead in Baga, then for the fact that if Boko Haram establishes its goal of creating an independent Caliphate in Western Africa, the consequences for Europe could be far reaching and dangerous. Boko Haram is not a fan of the West, the name itself means “Western Education is forbidden”. So if it succeeds in capturing most of Nigeria, the group is unlikely to stop there and the possibility of a government who use tactics of terror on civilians in the name of religion, to bring down the West could become a scary reality.

The world needs to come to terms with the fact that a European life is not worth more than an African life. We should be as deeply shocked by terror killings in Nigeria as we are by those in Paris, and global media coverage, in the age of all powerful globalisation, should reflect that. Terrorist activity is on a new high, not just in Europe, but the world over: Nigeria, Indonesia, Colombia, Kenya, Canada, and it cannot be ignored in any location, no matter how backward that country may seem.

People need to know about Baga. The media needs to tell them so that around the globe, millions will send a message to Boko Haram: They cannot continue to slaughter thousands of innocents and the world will not stand by if they do. But more importantly, they will send a message to Nigeria and to Africa: The world has not forgotten about you. I am Baga.