4.2.3 Review of policies of architectural decolonisation

can play a critical role in promoting social cohesion and the construction of national and cultural identities. However, this potential allowed the emergence of protests, confrontations, and revolts that often achieves the opposite of social cohesion and national identity (Ndletyana & Webb, 2017). This cohesion is achievable once an understanding of the underlying message and ideology is perceived in the minds of the audience.

4.2.3 Review of policies of architectural decolonisation

There is a need to review the policies of architectural decolonisation in light of the controversial architectural heritage artefacts (statues, buildings, and places). Attacks on statues and memorials are not new in democratic South Africa. Literature has records of debates centred on how colonial and apartheid-era symbols should be treated in relation to what they represent and the memories they stir. Some groups still view statues as symbols of untransformed power relations.

Political transition and independence did not immediately address the meanings invested in colonial-era architectural legacies. In the context of South Africa, reconciliation was narrowly interpreted to mean leaving the artefacts of the past intact, while in some cases, establishing new artefacts (often alongside). Reconciliation also meant not provoking the white minority by transforming their monuments and memorials. According to Ndletyana and Webb (2017), the legislative and policy framework guiding memorials and statues is exposed as inadequate and biased. Before the elected democratic government of South Africa assumed power in 1994, the apartheid regime took significant steps to neutralise efforts to tamper with symbols of their ideologies. This neutralisation of tampering was achieved by establishing Section 21 companies that existed independently of the state postapartheid. These companies own and protect several iconic institutions fundamental to Afrikaner nationalism.

As such, current national and international policies, legislations and restrictions in existing heritage legislations need to be reconsidered in instances that may be deemed inadequate and biased. In the context of this study, reviewing and looking at the possibility of amending some statutory instruments upheld by organisations like the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) and the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ). On the International platform a review of