Authoritarianism rears head again

DEAR SIR — Gerrit Olivier does well to remind us (Codesa gave SA liberal veneer for discrimination, November 9) that Nelson Mandela sought to not only build a state with a democratic architecture, but to infuse it, by the sheer weight of example, with strong moral content. In doing so, Mandela led one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century, which was the relatively peaceful transition from apartheid to democracy, a triumph of the human spirit.

But what Olivier does not emphasise is that Mandela’s effort was built on the infertile soil of an authoritarian culture that informed the habits and behaviours of South Africans, some more than others certainly, across the divide, black and white.

After Mandela, the ugly face of authoritarianism, therefore, easily rose again and accelerated under President Jacob Zuma, who shares neither the democratic instincts nor Mandela’s moral commitments.

Individual moral leadership matters in history, but it is the tolerant culture of political parties and fair norms of competitive elections that define whether we tend towards authoritarianism or democracy.

Writing about ideal types in elections, Henry Kissinger once made the distinction between a democratic system in which “the loser can accept his defeat with relative grace” and an authoritarian one in which “the victor assumes the right to proscribe his opponents”.

The African National Congress under President Zuma has veered towards the authoritarian. The Economic Freedom Fighters brought the additional travesty of an authoritarian populism, where the basic norms of democratic conduct are observed only in their breach. Mandela’s moral state has been hollowed out by some — not all — of today’s politicians.

The revulsion against President Zuma’s R4bn jet is an indication, if any is needed, of his leading role in gutting Mandela’s state of the last vestiges of a public morality.