By Kerwin Jacobs
It's inspiring to see a prospective future leader of the DA, Mbali Ntuli, take such a bold stance asking for rigorous public debate.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so ridiculous that John Steenhuisen finds it such an abhorrent idea to engage in an open public debate before an election. Steenhuisen replied with an appeal to tradition arguing that it is not the party process.
However, this would not be a first for the party. Should we accept his argument from tradition? It is only fair that we acknowledge that in 2015 Mmusi Maimane and Wilmot James debated on national TV and set a new precedent for the DA and its election race.
I'm reminded of a similar situation in 2017 where the party embargoed a discussion on Black Consciousness.
At the time, Bonginkosi Madikizela (then Western Cape chairperson) expressed that he was "appalled" at the scheduled debate labelling it as being "... damaging to our brand and our image".
In my capacity as chairperson of Daso (DA Student Organisation) Stellenbosch, I took exception to this and argued then, as I do now, that open debate on a host of topics is integral to the maturation of the party.
Calls for more public debate and transparency from the party are not new. Numerous former leaders have accused the party of stifling open debate. It's pertinent that the party starts heeding these requests.
The persistent view by the party that debate is potentially damaging should be reason enough for us to question just how sound the DA's leadership and ideology is.
The fact that their public representatives essentially get paid to debate, but refuses to participate in one for such an important party-political decision should raise red flags.
I would go so far as to argue that it is in this refusal to engage openly that we find the commonality between the DA and their opposition. Though, as evidenced by the president of the ANC in his recent open letter, even the ANC is more open to speaking publicly and honestly about their issues than the DA.
Ntuli captured the essence of why the DA should host these open debates so eloquently: “Public debate has the innate knack of exposing weak political ideology and policy imperatives. If a politician is fearful to partake in public debate out of fear that their political ideology will be rejected in the open market of ideas beyond their narrow political ecosystem and echo chambers, that is not because the process is unfair, rather that is exactly what public debate is designed to expose.”
I would further argue that, based on the party's principles and values, these debates would be the perfect opportunity to demonstrate what election campaigns could look like in their open opportunity society. The DA, and Steenhuisen, need to decide if they indeed believe in liberal democracy premised on values of freedom, fairness, opportunity and diversity or if it's just a PR slogan they love.
* Kerwin Jacobs is a former Daso Stellenbosch chairperson and #FeesMustFall activist.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of IOL.