Under the guise of talking truth to power, several antinomian elements are trying to suppress debate and wrestle power from the ruling party, writes Gwede Mantashe.
There is a growing, subtly imposed narrative in the broader public discourse that seeks to suggest that every other South African, barring the ANC, can comment freely on any and other matter in society.
The result thereof is that, when any person or organisation either criticises or even attacks the ANC, there is an expression of consent and applause.
Of greater concern is that those who celebrate this often ignore acceptable norms of verification.
This attitude is characterised by a false sense of celebrating antinomian behaviour that is slowly clawing at our institutions of governance and our social fabric broadly.
In part, this derives from the misnomer that such behaviour is talking truth to power. On the other hand, this tries to hide the fact that underlying all of it is the attempt to wrestle power from the ANC.
The flip side of this behaviour is that when the ANC challenges or comments on any societal matter, it is accused of aggressiveness (and) arrogance and that it is harsh on its opponents or those who dare to speak against it. In a normal democracy it is fair that even the majority party asks those who make public accusations about one or the other of its senior members to share with the public that kind of information.
Surely, it stands to reason that those who place the ruling party under scrutiny should, themselves, be without reproach and be open to the same scrutiny.
Critically, our concern is not with the posture taken in these instances but the narrative that informs it. Why is this narrative getting traction in the public discourse?
Some time ago Aubrey Matshiqi made a diagnostic analysis of our society wherein he suggests that in South Africa the numerical minority has become a cultural majority.
Of particular interest is how the concept is defined to show that the same elite own the monopoly of the public space. Therefore, when those regarded as nobodies dare (to) try to enter the public discourse they are treated as intruders. At the core of this approach is racial superiority and subtle racial inferiority.
The view the ANC cannot or should not publicly criticise anyone or our society broadly has been developing over a number of years. Its early signs showed during the term of office of our second administration.
Thabo Mbeki was labelled racist and Africanist for proposing that South Africa is a country of two nations, one black and poor and the other white and rich. Criticism of Mbeki disregarded his articulation of the long-held theory of the national democratic revolution; that of three interrelated contradictions in our society, that is, race, gender and class, which was inherent in the two nations’ analysis.
Following the ANC’s 1999 overwhelming victory at the polls, commentary in the liberal white press began to “give advice” to the ruling party on how, despite its overwhelming electoral majority, (it) should be magnanimous.
The subtle message was that such a majority should not be placed at the service of the poor majority, because it could potentially tamper with aspects of society regarded to be the preserve of white power and privilege. Noteworthy, those who were informing the public in this regard had shunned according the ANC the mandate to govern.
The ANC, rightly so, is viewed as the embodiment of the majority who, until it came into power, deserved nothing more than subjugation. We recall how Native Education was constructed to engender the view that blacks cannot hold opinions equal to or superior to whites, as (historian) Leonard Thompson shows: “If a native in South Africa today in any kind of school in existence is being taught to expect that he will live his adult life under a policy of equal rights, he is making a mistake. There is no place for him in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour.” (Thompson wrote A History of South Africa).
This conception of racial superiority of self, against the racial inferiority of the other, is what Dr Mamphela Ramphele described as a failure to understand that “the scars of racism in this country have not completely healed”. This failure to understand is expressed in veiled attempts to conceal nuances that instil racial polarisation.
The ANC, in this context, is adjudged to be talking for the collective that is black. Therefore, it deserves to be vilified. Fundamentally, this is an attempt to silence the African majority in line with the fallacious theory that our democracy is not about numbers but values.
This means, in real terms, that votes are weighted in terms of those who are propertied, resourced and organised against those who are without these.
In this scenario, the former’s votes – though in reality a minority – weigh more than those of the poor and poorly organised, regardless of being the majority.
Bear in mind that in South Africa, poverty and wealth go hand in glove with a racial content, or race. Consequently, the question we must then ask is: whose values are being advocated for?
The intended outcome of these arguments, coupled with the intention to silence the ANC’s voice in the public discourse, is to ensure that it gradually loses face and is kept out of the public domain and delegitimised. In the end, it is meant to be weak until it is totally vanquished.
The mission to defeat the black majority by wrestling power away from the ANC is best illustrated by Dr Eddy Maloka’s reference to Tony Leon’s speech while still leader of the DA, where he says: “The medium to long-term objective of focusing on minorities was informed by the hope that one day, Africans could be defeated electorally... Voters from minority groups, fearful of majority tyranny and single-party domination, are more receptive to our message.”
The cacophony of noises we hear now is about executing this long- term strategy, with the swart gevaar carefully introduced in the message intended to delay transformation. The black masses themselves (are) also brought on board without being made fully aware, to support this agenda as it is couched in the language of values and democracy.
Acquiescing (to) being silenced would be an acceptance to be made powerless at the time when our detractors are assailing us and the very fundamental ideals of changing South Africa into a united, non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous country. The temptation to project the ANC’s majority as a threat to democracy and society at large and, in particular something that should bring fear to the minority communities, should be challenged and resisted.
Our democracy avails space and parameters for us all to enjoy freedom. A principle of this democracy is that no one and no institution is above criticism.
No one’s views should be suppressed or excised and no group or individual own the monopoly of ideas or wisdom. Therefore our criticism of anyone or any institution should by no means devalue them, but should aim to enhance the manner in which we, as South Africans, wish to shape our democratic present and future.
There is a concerted attempt to make us believe that apartheid is dead, that racism has been overcome and, therefore, society is normal. Such a deception wants us to believe that we are free when in reality we have only just gained the freedom to be free, as Nelson Mandela warned us.
We seek to build a nation from the ashes of a system that sought, as Thompson suggests, “to preserve pure race traditions in all possible ways as a holy pledge entrusted… by our ancestors as part of God’s plan.”
The resistance to the majority having an equal right to engage, particularly when they hold views opposed to those of whites, is a manifestation of racist attitudes. Similarly, we should not be surprised when some among us join the chorus that strives to keep us out of the public engagement space, because Steve Biko warned us of such.
But it also means that those of us who are determined to realise a better South Africa containing the best that humanity has, should be the true model of what we wish our society to be.
This is a commitment we need to express in word and deed.
We should heed the words contained in the preamble of our constitution, as Professor Ben Turok reminds us: “Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; lay a foundation for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.”
These are our responsibilities, rights and commitment, as a people.
It is in the interest of the ANC that a plurality of voices should prevail, including those of members of the ANC. The purpose of the commentators, analysts and newspeople is to ensure that the public has the facts so they can make an informed judgement.
As one of the lead actors in the TV series The Newsroom reminds us, “news organisations are a public trust, with an ability to inform and influence a public conversation”. Such a conversation, all-inclusive, should assist our society and its democratic institutions to live up to the ideals our forebears set before, the ideals we have embraced as the defining features of what it means to be South African.
We should, as the Freedom Charter called on us, embrace: “These freedoms we shall fight for, side by side...”
Even now when we have gained our liberty.
* Mantashe is secretary-general of the ANC.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers
Sunday Independent