Hypocrisy to discipline for tweet

WESTERN Cape premier Helen Zille’s unfortunate defence of the legacy of colonialism can be understood in a different perspective than disguised racism.

At the DA caucus meeting convened to discuss the charges against Zille, in Cape Town on Thursday, it was generally agreed to be a sad day for her since she, an anti-apartheid activist with impeccable struggle credentials, is known not to be a racist.

But at the weekend Black First Land First preferred charges of racism against Zille.

My argument is that a different interpretation is possible. This is not a defence of colonialism, but a defence of Zille.

In her book, What if There were no Whites in South Africa? (2016), former Mail & Guardian editor Ferial Haffejee argues that the ruling party under Jacob Zuma went out of its way to polarise our society through blatant racism.

The reason is nothing less than an effort (largely successful) to divert attention away from the failures of government.

Every time Zuma addresses the issue of “white monopoly control” or “clever blacks”, he is fuelling racist sentiment to detract from Nkandla, the scandals surrounding the Zuptas or Eskom.

Whether this same consideration is true of Julius Malema is a question that I will leave open for another day.

For the government to pursue such an agenda is considerably more dangerous than for an individual to do so.

Against this background, there is more to the Zille matter than meets the eye.

First, it has been rumoured that knives are out for DA leader Mmusi Maimane.

The DA’s first black leader has been labelled a stooge.

If Zille (who punted Maimane for leadership of the party) could be removed from the DA, his position would be greatly weakened. Why can’t Maimane see it? Perhaps he prefers to sway with the wind or, as former party leader Tony Leon suggests, he and Zille are themselves locked in a power struggle. Second, race is not only determined by the colour of your skin.

Consider Ian Morris’s argument that a number of African leaders’ genocidal policies against their own people had been thinly disguised racism.

Are Africans hating other Africans because they are black?

Yes, Morris, who is professor of globalisation and development at Oxford University, is convinced that certain African leaders, especially if they were educated in the West and identified with Western values, have fallen into this trap.

The issue of racism, then, is considerably nuanced.

To return to Zille, what other plausible interpretation can be placed on Zille’s words that “colonialism wasn’t all bad”?

I suggest the term “technocracy” can help to place a different gloss on her remark.

The Marxist-inspired Frankfurt School (led by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno) in pre-war Germany coined the word in the wake of its members’ increasing concern with the tendency among both the scholarly community and people in general to equate “knowledge” with the findings in the natural sciences.

Any other claims to “knowledge” falling outside these parameters (that is, facts verifiable under strict observable conditions) are dismissed short of spurious.

Scientism, as this line of conviction is known, goes hand in hand with technocracy.

Technocracy, so prominent among our youth of all races, is the belief that knowledge is only valuable if it has “usefulness” to it and especially so if the use value can be translated into exchange value.

The craze for the latest and the best technology (such as iPods or cellphones) is an example of a present day technocratic mindset.

Why do I nonetheless refer to Zille’s remarks as unfortunate?

Even though she is avowedly not a racist, her remarks could plausibly be cast in that frame. Her comments are typical of a technocratic mindset which does not readily allow for critical reflection.

Zille’s views on the “benefits” of colonialism can conceivably be cast in a technocratic mould.

Granted that she is no racist, she sees the usefulness of piped water and tarred roads, to mention but a few features of the colonial legacy, in its technocratic sense.

The point I am driving at is that these features of technology can be – and frequently are – severed from its original colonial context.

If Zille is to be disciplined for her views on colonialism, despite its technocratic undertones, then I ask what is to be done to the racists in government that fuel polarising of our society for their own nefarious agendas? When and who will discipline them? To discipline Zille for her unfortunate remarks in this context is nothing but hypocrisy.