This study applies Ayvazyan’s (2012: 23) theories to read genocide intent in the group behaviour captured in The Line. Drawing on Ayvazyan, we can as- sume that David, Nomsa and Bheki are members of the group16that is perpe- trating (P) the attacks and define and centre their sense of societal belonging on the concept of indigeneity and nationality. Through the attacks, the per- petrators (P) aim to achieve happiness (H). From the specificity of targets we can deduce that this group labels happiness within the confines of its mem- bership, while refusing any coexistence with the victim group (V) comprising Eliza, Alfred and their families who are foreign nationals within the confines of the Alexandra society (S).
Using this formulation then, we can deduce that P equates to H: H=S-V, while P=S-V as well, so is H=S-V=P, ≥ H=P.
Ayvazyan argues that the equation (H=S-V=P) is essential in understanding the leading force underlying genocidal intent (2012: 23). Applying this equa- tion to the testimonies of perpetrators in The Line, we can trace the evolu- tion of Stanton’s ‘eight stage model.’ The meeting held at what the character David calls ‘San Kopano’ (formally known as the Alexsan Kopano Resource Centre) becomes a defining stage in the organization of the mass violence. At this meeting, instigators like the politician Bheki, gave voice to a shared view where the perpetrators equated their happiness to the emergence of a soci- ety comprising of people whose membership could only be drawn from and
16 The word ‘group’ is used with trepidation given the fact that no distinct group exists, but it is based on the idea that the persons perpetrating attacks consider themselves as part of what
90
through indigeneity and nationality. In the play, Shmukler (2012:16) records David testifying:
I was involved in ish Gomorrah. I was there actually – I was there. There was a meeting neh at San Kopano – ja, about the foreigners. The council – the Alex council called the meeting. Then we decided to hold a meeting – with them – and then (laughs) woo.
(The questions are becoming more difficult to answer)
Alright so okay – we have decided to catch this meeting at the San Kopano with our councillor. They ask questions – what are we doing (laughs) so we wanted to address the issues of the foreigner-
Yo yo yo ja almost everyone in Alexandra was at the meeting (sigh), ja May 2008.
Calling for a meeting with such an agenda constitutes a breach of Article III of the UN Convention on Genocide, which make ‘conspiracy to commit gen- ocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide; as well as complicity in genocide’ punishable acts.
Shmukler writes that Bheki and the political leadership made the case that it was essential to eject all foreigners – the ‘victim group’ – who were residing in the society:
those who are not born from this country – they need to go back to their own countries. We just came out of the same situation as them and they had their own independence before us so why are we supposed to carry the burden. We need to, to, to do things for ourselves first so that we can be able to do for others (2013: 78).
The ejection plan involved terrorizing and confiscating the victim group’s as- sets and belongings. The ejection plan would fall under section ‘c’ of the UN Convention on Genocide where; ‘deliberately inflicting on the group condi- tions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part’ constitutes an act of genocide.
Shmukler records Bheki as saying:
What we did was we needed to intimidate them – take what they have like I’ve said – if you’ve got a, a house or a shack or a spaza shop we, understand
– we make sure we take that away from you so that you can be able to go back and come with that mind of a spaza shop in your own area – in where you were born so that you can uplift your own area […] This is ours. We on our own we are not okay yet (2013: 79).
Bheki is articulating what Neocosmos calls ‘state discourse of xenophobia’ (2008: 587). According to Neocosmos, Bheki’s sentiments echo the 1994 call to take ‘physical action’ made by the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) when he says in The Line:
We’ve been telling these employees not to hire these people. Now, when, when you look at the entire Gauteng province, you will see that you’ve got more of these people working here, and I can tell that they are working ille- gally which is not okay.
The language of address confirms the Stanton’s ‘classification’ stage marked by ‘them’ and ‘us’ discourse. It also confirms Dodson’s observation of the widespread conflation of migration and illegality.
Ayvazyan argues that the socio-political motives of mass violence are hard to ascertain and ‘different motivations unite in intent and give birth to gen- ocide. Motivations are the rationales of intent’ (2012: 23). Roger Smith con- curs, adding that genocidal violence can broadly be classed as ‘institutional; retributive; utilitarian; monopolistic and ideological’ (1999: 5). Bheki’s calls would make the attacks monopolistic and ideologically motivated.
Varied testimonies in The Line discussed in earlier sections point to a multi- plicity of motivations; showing that genocide is a complex group crime that cannot be easily be categorized.
The character David reveals that at the community meeting it was agreed that the attacks would be carried out after three days, to allow the perpetrators time to organize and to arm themselves, and identify houses and businesses owned and used by foreign nationals. This three day stage would constitute what Stanton’s considers the fourth stage of genocide, which he terms the ‘organization’ phase (2007: 3). David vividly describes the execution of the mob attack, and the last word that closes the testimony is the fact that some people were burned; quickly adding that he did not personally burn anybody.