Zille’s D-Day
WESTERN Cape Premier and former DA leader Helen Zille will know on Sunday whether she will face any disciplinary measures for controversial tweets praising colonialism.
In a statement yesterday, James Selfe, chairman of the DA’s federal executive, said a report compiled by Glynnis Breytenbach, the party’s chairperson of the federal legal commission, has been submitted to be discussed at the meeting. – ANA
THE aftermath of the furore around the controversial statement made by DA Premier in the Western Cape Helen Zille will, for many reasons, remain in the public space for some time.
From the outset one needs to state that the conquest, oppression, exploitation and outright murder of African people by the colonial system cannot find any form of justification whatsoever.
It is common knowledge that the legacy of colonialism has left Africa poor and wars inspired by the colonial system continue to inspire wars in some parts of Africa.
But maybe Zille’s remarks have unexpectedly compelled us to reflect on the unwritten rules of public debate in our fledgling democracy, where any subject on racism evokes strong emotional reactions, especially from black people, who are confronted daily by manifestations of racism at work, schools and in various public spaces.
The first rule of public dialogue and debate is about what subjects are brought into the arena.
It seems that, as a nation, we have not yet reached a stage where we can interrogate, reflect and debate complex, topical socio-political subjects which could, if not properly handled, widen the historical racial divide between white and black people of South Africa.
Let’s take, for example, the complex subject on the legacy of Nelson Mandela.
There is a considerable body of political opinion which claims that Mandela sold out black people during the process of political negotiations aimed at creating a democratic, non-racial South African society.
About two years ago, during his tour in the UK, EFF leader Julius Malema launched a scathing attack on Mandela’s legacy, in which he accused Mandela of compromising the fundamental principles of the revolution captured in the Freedom Charter when he became a free man.
Malema’s standpoint on Mandela’s legacy is corroborated by Sampie Terreblanche in his extensively researched narrative titled A History of Inequality in South Africa.
He argues that under Mandela’s leadership, during negotiations, the ANC surrendered economic control to white capital in exchange for political power.
Terreblanche argues that such an arrangement has trapped the black majority in a situation of institutionalised poverty.
The subject of Mandela’s socio-economic legacy is complex and emotional and has generally been excluded from the domain of public debate.
There are many other subjects which could be put on the agenda of public debate but they are much too sensitive for us to handle.
Take, for example, the farm killings.
Once the subject is put in the public space, some of us quickly bring up the violent killings in townships and use that to trivialise the butchery of vulnerable white farmers.
As a nation, we tend to shy away from those debatable topics which seem to reinforce, in our minds, notions of black victims and white beneficiaries of the unjust systems of colonialism and apartheid.
The second unwritten rule of public debate is to always accept, with humility, that all of us speak from a position and we need to acknowledge our respective positions when we engage in public debates.
Some South Africans speak from a position of historical white privilege.
Max du Preez, in his book titled A Rumour of Spring offers sisterly/brotherly advice to his white compatriots when he says:
“But I think it would be appropriate for us Africans with pale skins to get a proper understanding of what our early ancestors’ arrival and treatment of the people they found here meant, and then to acknowledge the disruptive, disempowering and traumatic impact it had on local peoples and their spirituality and development.
“We should admit that apartheid and continuing white privilege flowed from the colonial era.”
Our position in terms of race, class and ideology will determine the kind of feedback our debates get from society.
I am reminded of a rare opportunity of a dinner conversation with Chief Justice Pius Langa, where I questioned the esteemed judge about what I considered to be a lenient sentence passed by the high court on a Sasolburg man accused of killing a black worker by dragging him behind a bakkie.
In reply, the chief justice cited law research which indicates that those who share similarities with victims of an alleged crime would always feel that the court has not acted fairly when passing sentence on the accused.
He reminded me that my viewpoint on the Sasolburg case was informed by my position – in sober legal language he explained that I carry that view because I am black and male.
We must at all times reflect on our positions and consider how such positions shape our participation and arguments in public debates.
The third unwritten rule of public debate is to anticipate fierce contestations on topics of a historical nature. Scholars of history, as an academic subject, usually argue that the study of history is essentially about interpretations of the past.
Interpretations, by their very nature, are subject to contestations to an extent that history scholars make mention of “interpretations of interpretations” of history.
Such an analysis of interpretations may even go to the extent where it becomes deficit of logic if one were to make sense of the expression “interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of history”. The dilemma here becomes an honest and objective analysis of what the speaker or sender of the message was saying or intended to say. We need to get into the complicated exercise of formulating interpretations of the message.
In response to such a complex analysis of the semantics behind words, an American spin doctor once said:
“It does not mean if the president said what he said then he said what he said.” (If this could be applied to Zille, it could be phrased as follows: “It does not mean if Zille said what she said then she said what she said.”
She might have overstepped the unwritten boundaries of public debate in our young democracy, but she has succeeded in refocusing our national agenda on how we reflect on the legacies of colonialism and apartheid misrule.
We need to steer our national debate in a direction that seeks to respond to the words mentioned by US President Lyndon Johnson in 1960: “But freedom is not enough.
“You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up the starting line and then say ‘You are free to compete with all others’, and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”
Thus, it is not enough to open the gates of opportunity.
All our citizens must have the ability to walk through the gates…
We seek not just freedom but opportunity; not just legal equity but human ability; not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and as a result.
Dr Faleni (PhD): DA member of the North West Provincial Legislature, writes in his personal capacity