African Renaissance

The Department of Foreign Affairs (2008), notes that South Africans policy initiatives should be modest and not overly ambitious. A reactive policy is inappropriate. The country policies-both domestic and international level- in essence map out to ensure “peace, democracy,respectfor human rights and sustained development” (Department Of Foreign Affairs, 2008). A range of principal policy actors “exercise varying degrees of influence to shape the outcomes of these processes” (Raptor, 2004: 3).

Among these actors are “formal state institutions such as the ruling party, opposition parties, the legislature, portfolio committees and individual members of provincial legislatures. There are also external, non-state policy actors and institutions such as organized interest groups, the media, independent consultants, non-governmental organizations and ordinary citizens” (Raptor, 2004:4). Examples include “the modern social movement, Anti- Appropriation Forum (APE); the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDEAS)” amongst the many.

Components of the concept, Vale and Masses (1998: 272) suggest, are intentionally kept unclear, so as to “create space for embroiling people for championing the AR concept” (Vale and Masses 1998: 272), because it is utilized by a broad spectrum of actors, from “politicians and policy-makers, to businessmen and scholars” (Vale and Masses 1998: 273) – it is almost impossible for the term to lose its gist. Vale and Masses (1998: 273) observe that the “visionary language of the African Renaissance was understood by five suggested areas of engagement: the encouragement of cultural exchange; the ’emancipation of African woman from patriarchy; the manipulation of youth; the broadening, deepening and sustenance of democracy; and the initiation of sustainable economic development” (Vale and Masses 1998: 273; Bјsheer and van Amerce 2005: 179).

Apart from unveiling the core themes of the theory, it is necessary to explore the scope of the concept in the contrasting views explored by Vale and Masses (1998: 278) in order to understand whether or not the development of the African Renaissance is really necessary for South Africa- both on domestic and foreign policy levels. The authors differentiate between two explicit views of South Africa in Africa: the “globalize interpretation”- which was “cast in the modernist tradition”, and embraces a modernist approach ofglobalization, with fair emphasis on appropriation, liberation’s and the sort. The second approach- “Africans approach”- adopts the African Renaissance to “unlock a series of complex social constructions” embodied around African status.

He needs to pride himself in the Africancultureand history- and reflect the “spirit of reconciliation and mutual respect” that penetrates the African society, and aid to “re-enforce the country pride in its multi-ethnic roots” (South African Tourism, 2011). Color doesn’t begin to own the rich concept- African. Simply put an African is an African. Undeniably, politics still runs across race nines in South Africa, but the common vision for a stable and democratic Africa, embodied in the African Renaissance policy can erase those lines, and assist in moving forward as a ‘trailside’ state built on policies that are inclusive and rooted in achieving equal opportunity for all. The policies that emanate from the African Renaissance objectives, I. E.

BEE- refuted to favor only the black population- were formulated to fix the problems of the past which deprived certain groups of people (Mislabel 2001), and should be understood in not-so extremist meaner ‘exclusionary), because they were employed to ‘make right’ -to correct the country past apartheid fallouts. We have different but not contrasting cultures, and all seek a common goal: political, social and economic success. The AR policy was designed upon similar vision and objectives, and no doubt can contribute towards the advancement of the everyday ordinary South African. Conclusion “To succeed, South Africans African Renaissance will draw together widely divergent ideas on what it is to be African in the eve of the 21st century’ (Vale and Masses 1998: 280).