Matshiqi loses the plot

I was surprised and bewildered to read Aubrey Matshiqi’s column (Colonisers have conquered far more than just the land, July 10). Surprised, because his articles in Business Day have normally displayed a judicious combination of perspicacity and wisdom. Bewildered because paragraph after paragraph was filled with such non sequiturs that one wonders what he was thinking at the time of composing the article.

Let me quote a few passages: “South Africa belongs to those who conquered it…. It is for this reason that expropriation of land, with or without compensation, will not happen unless we seek, and get, the consent and approval of the conquerors.” So far so good, but now comes the really interesting part: “It is for this reason that ours is the kingdom of the conquerors — the kingdom of liberal democracy. If the king [Zwelithini] wants to breathe, he must make sure his breathing is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution, especially the property clause, which gives legal authority to the sin of colonial conquest.”

So there we have it: the Constitution is merely the product of colonial conquest, notwithstanding that it was debated among all the relevant political formations, including the ANC, during the constitutional negotiations leading to its adoption in 1996, and was drafted by eminent legal scholars, among whom were stalwarts of the resistance against apartheid.

Are we expected to believe that we should do away with our constitutional dispensation to overcome the “kingdom of the conquerors — the kingdom of liberal democracy”? It was precisely to overcome the sins of colonialism and apartheid that SA embarked on its constitutional journey, setting an example to the rest of the world.

Professor Emeritus Maurizio Passerin d’Entreves University of Cape Town