A striking aspect of debate on matters of public interest in South Africa nowadays is the racial sub- text.
Developers produce a scheme for the transformation of Johannesburg’s Zoo Lake. The issues are environmental. The sub-text is black business empowerment.
Eugene Nyati is accused of creaming off public funds. The issue is financial accountability. Nyati charges “racism”. Mathews Phosa says euphemistically that Nyati is a victim of “people opposed to change”.
The African Bank collapses, raising important issues relating to the regulation of the sector. The controversy is about whether the government has a duty to rescue it, because it is “black”.
In the aftermath of apartheid, it would be naive to expect that the issue of racism could magically vanish from public consciousness. Public debate of race issues is inevitable and to some extent desirable. But it becomes distasteful when the card is played for sectional, or selfish interests.
It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the race card has been played with just such ends in mind where Zoo Lake is concerned. To try and trump well-deserved public outrage by an appeal to black empowerment smacks of outright cynicism.
As for Nyati, his allegation of racism amounts to little more than racism itself. Phosa has at least made some amends for his little euphemism by conceding the charges when the weight of evidence was brought home to him.
Where the African Bank is concerned, the matter is more complex. On one level, the demand that it be saved as a symbol of black business can be seen as a a self- seeking ploy by desperate depositors. On the other hand, their indignation has some basis, in the reported Reserve Bank intervention in support of “white” banks in the past.
But we would that those fighting for the survival of the African Bank ground their case in the responsibility of government to secure citizens’
If we have to live with the race issue, at least let it not stand as an excuse for hypocrisy.