By superimposing its version of the reality as the truth, the ANC has defined what truth is. To not concur, one will be vilified, denigrated and castigated.
Freedom of speech is enshrined as a cornerstone of the South African Constitution. Overseen by an independent Constitution Court, one should face no risks for expressing one’s opinion without fear or favour.
Superficially this may be true but stray ever so slightly from the accepted ANC line especially as a white South African, and one risks being accused of nefarious deeds such as racism and being unpatriotic.
I have watched with despair for numerous years this state of affairs but like a surfer trapped in a rip tide, one is inexorably drawn in the opposite direction from that which one desires. Personally this manifestation of intolerance was a sore that festered in my psyche. There was no way in which this boil could be lanced without its vile contents unwittingly contaminating myself.
Then I received an article from a good friend, Peter Darroll, printed by the SA Institute of Race Relations. Being too busy to read immediately, I only read the executive summary:
“Political debates about South Africa are still hobbled by all manner of constraints that you simply do not meet in discussions on contemporary British, French or American politics. If you argue that Barak Obama, David Cameron or Francois Hollarde are not really up to their jobs, this can lead to a debate about the demerits of a professional political class which has known little or no real life beyond politics. But if you suggest that the ANC is not capable of running South Africa, you will quickly be accused of racism, Afro-Pessimism and various other –isms whose main function is simply to shut down debate.
Debate about South Africa is thus immature. This should not be true of academic discussions, and particularly not of such discussions held far beyond the country’s borders. Yet these “strains of immaturity” everywhere infect forums on South Africa.
A proper discussion of South Africa thus still seems to be impossible.”
RW Johnstone could not put it more eloquently and succinctly.
Indeed, the overarching behaviour as regards opposing their world view, speaks volumes for their liberalism being a thin veneer of acceptability. No more. No less. It is a fig leaf of respectability.
Let us examine the inappropriate use of the word racist. The use of the word nowadays is merely – as RW Johnstone states it – to shut down debate or alternatively to achieve the accusers goal rather than the person actually being a racist.
On a number of occasions I have had the misfortune of being accused of being a racist. The reason for this damning offence was my decision in a disciplinary enquiry to impose some sanction on a fellow black employee after they were found guilty of some offence.
Of course this is not just used gratuitously by some dissolute shop steward but even by black Parliamentarians. During the recent SONA debate in Parliament [June 2014], Mr Julius Malema accused the DA Parliamentary leader, Mr Mmusi Maimane of being a house black.
How insulting and demeaning? Mr Maimane is twice the man that Julius will ever be. Mmusi is untainted by corruption and instead of playing to the gallery, provides cogent reasons why he supports a particular position or stance. While Maimane articulates the ideal of a nobler world, Julius appeals to the baser human instincts.
As a final example, what defence did Mac Maharaj, the Presidential spokesman, use in the case of the Inkandla Affair but to accuse the whites of South Africa as being subliminal racist for their use of the word compound instead of the more generic word house or mansion.
What South Africa most desperately requires at the moment is a Social Compact.
Firstly what is a Social Compact or Social Contract?
| (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties |
Why is it desirable that a Social Compact be concluded in South Africa?
In a homogeneous society, a shared vision of the future in most cases is easier to attain. However in a divergent society such as shared vision is extremely difficult to achieve especially in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and disparate agendas.
The only way in which such a shared outcome can be attained, is by means of a Social Contract to use the original expression. South Africa is undoubtedly one such candidate for its use. It is extremely useful and indeed powerful technique to be used especially when there are intractable problems to be resolved.
One major constraint facing South Africa is low growth in output but more importantly in jobs. The basic business model for the past two centuries has been cheap black labour used unproductively. In a democratic dispensation, such a model is bound to fail. The Platinum Industry has proved that.
The starve-the-buggers approach is not sustainable in the long term. What is required is some superordinate deal whereby productivity is raised substantially with its concomitant shedding of jobs.
An enabler of a Social Contract is social dialogue. With the intractable options being laid bare, an open ended dialogue has to commence about what that it means for each party and what its impact will be. This is not a quick-fix discussion but rather a process whereby each party learns to trust each other until ultimately an unbreakable bound is forged between the disparate parties.
Success is never assured with Nedlac being a prime example. Both parties baulk at the consequences of a discussion as they play to their galleries and stalemate ensues.
Such is life.
To date, South Africans have not been able to agree to the broad terms of such a compact. This says a great deal about the country’s history and the lack of trust in the body politic.
But why the conflation of self-imposed censorship and a Social Compact in South Africa?
It is as clear as daylight. Without the ANC climbing off its high horse of righteousness and being on the side of the angels – as we daily are exposed to in the form of corruption scandals – the pertinent debate will never commence. Imposing it invalidates it ab initio.
The ANC will forever cast aspersions on white motives and actions whilst minimising the achievements in the past. Whilst not denying in any shape or form the iniquities of the prior government, not all their actions were injurious to South Africa albeit to a minority.
Their abilities and skills are discounted and devalued as if they counted for naught.
What is termed debate is merely a stilted version of the facts. So as not to be tarred with the racist brush which is the South African equivalent to being banished to Siberia, the dialogue revolves around the peripheral issues rather than addressing its nub.
What the ANC has imposed upon us all by this iniquitous version of the truth is a façade of free speech and debate which in no measure will allow a true Social Compact to be drafted and implemented.
Without considering its consequences, the ANC and it sibling the EFF rant and purloin rather than discuss and consider using non-inflammatory monologue.
It will be an opportunity forgone never to be regained or revived.