Xolela Mangcu: CROSSFIRE
South Africa’s transition to democracy has been framed almost exclusively in political and economic terms. The formal transition to a constitutional democracy has been followed by an even greater focus on economic growth. While all of this is understandable and desirable, relatively little attention has been given to our public values.
And yet the success of our democracy is more than likely going to be determined by the extent to which our political, administrative and policy institutions are informed by the values, aspirations and motivations of ordinary South Africans. This in itself requires that our leaders undertake the difficult task of distilling what might be termed common-denominator-values among the many world-views that characterize South African life.
If Jawaharlal Nehru could frame a sense of public values for India, or Julius Nyerere for Tanzania, or James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for the United States, then surely, our national leaders should be able to do the same for South Africa.
In many ways Thabo Mbeki has started on that path by calling for a national consensus – which he describes as the African renaissance. The success of the African renaissance as a national ethos will, in turn, depend on the extent to which it matches the common aspirations of South Africans across political, economic and cultural divides. Equally important will be the means that are adopted to achieve the national consensus. In other words, the end values must be consistent with the democratic means that most South Africans cherish. How can this balance be achieved in practical terms? I suggest four policy steps.
First, we must create a deliberative process of public purpose-building that is pluralistic, and even clamorous, reflecting the diversity of our society. This must be something that appeals to the idealism of most people and must be conducted on a scale that parallels what other countries have achieved. An example that comes to mind is that of the framing of the US Constitution and the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
The National Endowment for the Humanities recently sponsored the National Conversation on American Pluralism and Identity to engage the American public on the paradox of pursuing a shared American identity in the midst of pluralist diversity. Even those who ascribe America’s success to its purposelessness, and even to the exploitation and exclusion of racial minorities, now argue for a common purpose because of changed conditions.
As Benjamin Barber puts it: “The new pressures of ecology,transnationalism, and resource scarcity in combination with the apparent bankruptcy of privatism, materialism, and economic individualism – [as well as] the pathologies and the ambivalent promises of our modernity – create conditions more inviting to the generation of public purposes and a public spirit than any America has ever known.
Several books have also come out celebrating India’s enduring democracy, 50 years after independence – a feat that they attribute to Nehru’s concept of unity in diversity. India continues to withstand the fundamentalist threat, and will most likely withstand its current woes, because of its democratic tradition.
We have also seen the rather belated, if grudging, recognition of the nation building legacy of Nyerere in Tanzania. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal observed that: “Mr Nyerere may have been a poor economist but he was a skilled nation builder. He fused Tanzania’s 120 tribes into a cohesive state, preventing tribal conflicts plaguing so much of Africa.”
South Africa can draw some lessons from these examples without committing the mistakes that these countries made in their economic policies. We can at least agree that successful democracies are those that draw from their pluralist diversity in creating broadly shared understandings. We have shown that we can do this by drafting and adopting what is arguably the best Constitution in the world. But we need to go beyond the formalism and rights- orientation of the constitutional process to build a positive cultural leitmotif that also pays attention to our collective responsibilities in the new society.
Second, a project of purpose-building must be conducted by public intellectuals who can be both supportive and critical of the national government. Public intellectuals are particularly suited for this role because they combine moral commitment to progressive ends with commitment to objective analyses and procedures. Their role would be to build a moral consensus that is preceded by an open airing of different viewpoints. But who and where are the public intellectuals?
Black intellectuals have particular perspectives that can inform a national conversation on the public purpose. They represent a set of values and world experiences that has historically been locked out of the knowledge-ideas complex in South Africa. It is indeed worrisome that the subject of black intellectual empowerment has not received the same level of national attention and visibility that political and economic empowerment have received.
I submit that unless the ideas of black people are part of this knowledge-ideas complex, our freedom will be incomplete. Ideas do matter and those who control ideas ultimately shape the policies that govern our lives. An idea that is part of our living experience as black people and one that underlies the process of reconciliation is that of ubuntu. Ubuntu is also eminently compatible with the idea of self-reliant and people-centered development. It is such congruence between public values and public policies that will ultimately provide the basis for effective governance.
It has, of course, been argued that ubuntu is a myth that papers over the atrocities that blacks have perpetrated on each other. But just as the existence of slavery and racist segregation does not make democracy any less desirable in the West, ubuntu still remains “necessary myth”.
Third, to prevent ossification of the deliberative process, the debate must also be conducted through multiple institutions – the media, policy institutes and community forums. The public must be encouraged to air its views through op-ed articles, and radio and television call-in shows. I can anticipate fears that this would immediately cede the process to the control of a generally hostile media. Maybe it is time for exploring more creative ways for inclusive public deliberation.
One possibility is private funding of new policy institutes – by the new black millionaires. This would not be just a matter of social responsibility but a pragmatic investment in the generation of new ideas.
Fourth, it is absolutely imperative that we develop the next generation of South African intellectuals. To be a public professor must be just as prestigious as being a doctor or a lawyer among young people. Perhaps a project of public purpose-building could be the beginning of such intellectual participation by young people in the formulation of their country’s new identity. Then they can say to future generations that they were there – at the country’s founding!
Xolela Mangcu is a visiting scholar of the John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Indian writers such as Sunil Khilnani and Shashi Tharoor attribute India’s resilience to what they describe as “the idea of India”. As Tharoor puts it “This is the idea that a nation may accommodate differences of caste,creed, colour, culture, cuisine, costume and custom, and still be a nation – so long as democracy ensures that none of these differences are decisive in determining an Indian’s opportunities.”
Between the Scylla of a romanticized
African past and the Charybdis of the Eurocentric present lie culturally hybrid forms of identity that should form the basis of a modern African renaissance.
Examples of such audacious social
invention include the flowering of democratic ideas in 17th and 18th century England and France.