Veiled call to arms is irresponsible and dangerous

DA interim leader John Steenhuisen stepped into dangerous territory late last week when he issued a veiled threat to President Cyril Ramaphosa about not lifting the lockdown and opening the economy.

With his exhortation, Steenhuisen followed radio shock-jock Garth Cliff’s threat against the state in which he said that there were more people who apparently agree with him than there were police or soldiers.

Together they follow the pattern established by the farright, white supremacists and neo-Nazis in the US, who have been protesting around that country for the lockdown to be lifted and the economy to be opened.

While both have the right to express their views, Steenhuisen

carries a greater responsibility as he represents the official opposition in parliament.

It is into a toxic fray that Steenhuisen has stepped when he effectively warned the president: “Unless you come to your senses and end this lockdown crisis, millions more will start breaking the law in the coming days and weeks.

“If you don’t end it, the people of SA will take charge and end it for you.”

There are two immediate problems with this statement by Steenhuisen.

The first is that it has the potential to whip up anger and manipulate the emotions of people who are already under stress because of the lockdown, and the real fear of contracting the dreaded Covid-19 virus.

The whipping up of anger and manipulation of emotions are typical populist methods.

We should be clear. There can be no doubting the social and economic impact of the virus, but it is absolutely important to place the safety of people first.

It is fair to say that there is mass fear, coupled with paranoia, across the country.

Under these conditions, anything that provides even the mildest sense of relief — even if it is phoney — can set off public disturbances that are difficult to contain.

What we have seen in the US is growing protest against the lockdown, with people ignoring personal distancing recommendations.

In some places these gatherings resulted in those very same people falling victim to the virus and becoming vectors for its spread.

The second problem with Steenhuisen’s threat is that it is irresponsible for a political leader, with substantial representation in parliament, to issue even the slightest of threat of public violence or the violation of law.

There is a tradition (not sure if it’s a tradition or simply a rule of thumb) that for as long as legal means exist for change, violence and public disobedience are unnecessary and probably unlawful.

If Steenhuisen disagrees with the president, he has every right, as leader of the opposition, and as an MP, to voice is disagreement.

There are, to be sure, many challenges that can be made against the lockdown.

The actual decision to issue the lockdown order can be challenged.

The public have the right to as much information as available.

The president and his advisers are not beyond criticism or scrutiny.

There is an argument to be made that the state acted without consulting or taking into consideration the material needs of the precariat; those people who live in informal settlements, who are unemployed or homeless.

But these people, the precariat, are not the reason Steenhuisen and a legion of people are calling for a lifting of the lockdown.

Theirs is essentially an argument to “open the economy” — which has powerful merits — because of a type of economic rationalism, which gives primacy to business and economics.

They seem to ignore the fact that without people there can be no economy.

Or, they simply care more about “the economy” than they do people.

We should make no bones about the fact that, apart from more progressive types, the DA is, for the most part, a white middle-class party trying very hard to make gains in the black community.

A more radical position may insist they are the last remaining kicks of a minority that has yet to come to terms with no longer being longer in control.

Steenhuisen’s threats echo those of Cliff — who threatened to “break [government] regulations.

Cliff’s threat was bolder than Steenhuisen’s.

“There are more of us,” Cliff said, “than there are police officers and soldiers, so if you piss enough people off, things get very hairy.

“I’m sure those advisers in the security cluster have mentioned that they can’t shoot us all or put us all in jail.”

Between Steenhuisen’s veiled threat and Cliff’s more brazen threat there is cause for concern.

Cliff, of course, has the right to free speech, as does Steenhuisen.

But threatening the state in a constitutional democracy at a time of a deadly pandemic, and using past service deliver failures (as did Cliff) to build an argument for opening the economy and ending the lockdown, is irresponsible and dangerous.