Last week, the Patriotic Alliance led by Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie publicly claimed that 23-year-old Chidimma Adetshina had not qualified for the finals of the Miss South Africa beauty pageant.
This was because her parents were not born in South Africa. Later, Interior Minister Leon Schreiber confirmed in a statement that his ministry was investigating whether Adetshina’s mother had committed fraud in 2001.
To his credit, Adetshina was not involved in any wrongdoing – she was just a toddler in 2001.
The PA then approached the court on the grounds that Adetshina should not be allowed to take part in the competition, whereupon she withdrew her participation.
It is hard to avoid the impression that the PA and its leaders, McKenzie and Kenny Kunene, were guilty of pure harassment here, knowing and not caring that this would cause pain to Adetshina, who has played no role in our public life nor committed any wrong in connection with her citizenship.
If it turns out that she was not granted South African citizenship legally, she would not be the first. Former DA MP Phumzile van Damme found this out through a very difficult and public process that she was born in Eswatini, while official documents stated that she was born in Mbombela.
Other politicians found themselves in a similar situation. In Australia It turned out that the MPs occupy their office illegally after it was discovered that they had dual citizenship.
Targets of xenophobia
Given the current political situation, questions surrounding identity and nationality are likely to be discussed in many different ways for some time to come.
Only about 3% of the people living in South Africa come from other countries.
However, their visibility and possibly their greater economic activity than that of many South Africans have made them targets of xenophobia.
Perhaps the first public figure to exploit xenophobia for political purposes was Herman Mashaba during his tenure as DA mayor of Johannesburg.
It was followed by the PA, the ATM and several other parties.
Even the DA once claimed She wanted to make immigration a major part of her election manifesto, but then backed away from it. It was her Home Secretary who made a public statement.
Although Schreiber may have felt he had no choice but to make the decision to review Adetshina’s citizenship public, the decision could well backfire on him.
It could be that Adetshina’s mother lied during the registration process. Or that she asked someone else (perhaps through an agent or agency) to register her child in good faith and that person then lied to her.
As an immigration lawyer Stefanie de Saude-Darbandi wrote This weekend there were many cases of officials giving incorrect advice to naturalisation applicants, pointing out that it is impossible for a foreigner to break the law without the connivance of a South African Minister of Home Affairs.
It may be impossible to prove what happened. Schreiber could be asked why he decided to make a public statement if it turns out there was no wrongdoing. Without his statement, Adetshina could argue that she could have won the competition.
Nationality and Law
This goes to the heart of very difficult questions of citizenship and law.
The Home Office – and its counterparts around the world – is at the centre of so much controversy because it is the department where human behaviour such as sexual identity, falling in love, having children and moving about in the world in non-binary ways must, by law, be defined in binary ways.
But to judge a person based on their place of birth or to alter their treatment in any way is the height of absurdity and prejudice.
Our grandchildren may one day find it as difficult to understand why people were treated so differently depending on where they were born as many young children today find it difficult to understand racism.
This is also a useful reminder of the experiences of the South African nation.
People have been moving around southern Africa for a long time before the colonial era. The discovery of diamonds in what is now Kimberley and the gold rush in what is now Gauteng led to an enormous wave of migration to what is now South Africa.
The result was that some people born in other countries played an immense role in our history and some people born here played an important role in the history of other countries.
For example, ANC chairman and Nobel Peace Prize winner Albert Luthuli was born in Zimbabwe; the founder of the National Union of Mineworkers, James Motlatsiwas from Lesotho; and Grace Mugabe, wife of the late Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, was born in Benoni, as was Oscar-winning actress Charlize Theron. Springbok mainstay Tendai Mtawarira, known in the rugby world as ‘The Beast’, was born in Zimbabwe.
It seems strange to suggest to voters that people from other countries should be treated differently, while our government publicly celebrates the success of Ndlovu Youth Choir in a television competition called America’s Got Talent.
Jean Pingwho had a Chinese father, was chairman of the African Union Commission. In Britain, the fact that a former prime minister, the current mayor of London and the previous leader of the Scottish National Party were all of Asian descent was rightly celebrated as proof that ethnic identity should not play a role in anyone’s life.
The vagaries of citizenship are so great that at least six pairs The brothers have played football for the national teams of various countries.
Organizers of Miss SA
Unfortunately, politicians are not the only hypocrites in the Miss South Africa debacle.
The organisers of Miss South Africa were one of the groups that first approached the Department of Home Affairs seeking clarity on Adetshina’s citizenship. While they may say they did so out of concern or because they were determined to ensure no law was broken, they should have known that the controversy would bring much more attention to their event.
The fact that the event took place on the long weekend of International Women’s Day suggests an attempt to link beauty with a woman’s worth.
Such a claim defies all rationality, but this organization has a long history of hypocrisy.
In 2021, she announced that the inclusion of a candidate who identified as transgender Proof that it was included.
But only one previous yearthe rules were: “The candidate must not have been married before, nor must a marriage have been annulled… Holders of the title of Miss South Africa must remain unmarried throughout their reign… It is recognised that candidates, even if in a committed relationship or engaged, must adhere to the rule of not marrying during the year of their reign.”
In addition, they were not allowed to become pregnant or to assume legal guardianship of a child.
Irrational
There is no rational reason for these requirements – if the goal is to judge “beauty,” what impact could a candidate’s marital status have? And why should becoming pregnant be such a grave sin?
This is completely at odds with the reality of our society, where many young women become involuntary parents of small children. Without the incredible efforts of these young women, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of small children would be left without care.
Although the Miss South Africa pageant claims to be inclusive, over the years the impression has been that the winner is neither married nor a parent, nor pregnant, nor petite or thin.
It has no impact on our country or the living conditions of almost all people in South Africa.
In Nigeria, the furore surrounding Adetshina was closely watched. Politicians were rightly concerned about xenophobia towards their people in South Africa.
One of the answers came from the Miss Universe Nigeria pageant, which invited Adetshina to participate in their competition.
The conditions for participation in this pageant are not clear. websiteit is unlikely that already qualified participants will welcome this. This appears to be an attempt to capitalise on the controversy.
Even the Puebla International Literature Festival in Mexico said it had South Africa’s status has been revoked As a result of this excitement, the “Country in Focus” became available.
It is said that this is a sign against injustice.
The organizers had given our nation this status, despite our unjust inequality and the appearance that it supports Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
For some reason, the organizers of the event came to the conclusion that this uproar over a young beauty contestant was more unfair than anything our government had done before.
Beauty pageants are a magnet for hypocrisy. For viewers, they are an exercise in confirming their own prejudices and an opportunity to claim that their “beauty standards” are correct.
This debacle, just like xenophobia, has no value for anyone. DM
