DA’s idea of redress off the mark

At its policy conference at the weekend, the DA reaffirmed its stance on non-racialism, a principle the party adopted together with other values of fairness and diversity.

These are not new party values. In fact, they have for a number of years shaped the DA’s liberal identity. It is the interpretation of these values, particularly in the SA context, that is likely to be a sticking point with the rest of the voting population.

The party acknowledges racism does exist, correctly stating that it has a profound impact on the lives of individuals and our society.

Importantly, the party rejects race as a way to categorise and treat people, including legislation that is based on race. It goes further to embrace diversity, saying “the value of the whole of our diverse experiences is greater than the sum of the parts”.

It believes each individual is unique and not a racial or gender envoy and therefore believes diversity is not demographic representation. It is on this basis that the DA rejects race and gender quotas.

It is precisely here that many have great difficulty with the DA’s interpretation of non-racialism in the context of our country.

First, let us be clear that there is no question that non-racialism should be embraced by all. But it would be simplistic to claim the interpretation ends there.

The fact of the matter is that an analysis of joblessness and inequality in SA cannot exclude race as a feature of its identity. This is because these are a social constructs whose very foundation has legislated discrimination against black people collectively on the basis of the colour of their skin.

That the ANC government has failed in almost three decades to meaningfully reverse inequality does not change the reality that in its very nature, poverty and inequality in this country is by design, racially skewed.

Furthermore, the scourge of unemployment and inequality in our country is so large that it needs deliberate and targeted intervention to achieve economic justice.

If we agree on this, then we must agree that such intervention can’t ignore the reality that these ills disproportionally affect a particular group of people whose present circumstances have been primarily defined by the fact that they are black.