The shades of Joe Slovo must have looked down on the Helena Dolny “scandal” with a sense of irony over the past week. It was, after all, The Star newspaper which accused the South African Communist Party leader during the apartheid era of having murdered his wife, Ruth First. Now it is The Star which has seemingly smeared his widow with the charges that she has been guilty of corruption, nepotism and racism in the administration of the Land Bank.
Newspapers as well as individuals are well- advised not to throw stones in glass houses and this newspaper has no desire to adopt a “holier-than-thou” attitude to The Star’s handling of the Dolny story. All newspapers make blunders – the Mail & Guardian, for example, is currently having to defend itself against charges that we treated the distinguished academic, Njabulo Ndebele, unfairly with regard to the University of the North funding of Edupark.
But we do feel that the Dolny story – based on charges, none of which have been sustained, sourced from a man who has an axe to grind with the Land Bank – reflects a mindset which raises issues going beyond that of journalistic bungling.
The Argus Group, as The Star’s owners were known before Tony O’Reilly took over, was essentially a creature of the mining houses – the white, English-speaking business establishment. Like all business establishments it had a weakness for authority, an instinct to cosy up to the political power of the day. It was that mindset which made them willing to believe the “wife-murderer” allegation against Slovo, on the basis of no other evidence than the say-so of security branch informants.
O’Reilly, since taking over the group, has made little secret of his determination to cosy up to the new political establishment. It has been reflected both in the vigorous pursuit of affirmative action policies within the group and a form of “sunshine journalism” which has characterised the editorial approach of the group’s titles to the new political order. It is a mindset which, we would suggest, has resulted in its publication of the “corruption” and “racism” allegations against Dolny on the basis of no other evidence than the say-so of that highly dubious source, Bonile Jack – a man with a grudge against Dolny, a man with a taste for secret agendas and a man who has been investigated by the Heath commission on corruption charges.
In the same way as Slovo was regarded as “fair game” under the old political order, so it would seem that Dolny has been seen as fair game under the new.
She is not the first to fall victim to this new form of prejudice and The Star has not been its only vehicle. Its arrival was heralded by Barney Pityana’s denunciation of that most gentle of liberal souls, Professor (now Judge) Dennis Davis as a “racist” on national television back in 1994. It was there in the row over the sacking of Slovo’s trusted lieutenant, Billy Cobbett, from the housing ministry. More recently, it was to be seen in the firing of Max du Preez by the SABC (a personalised attack on Du Preez by an editor on The Star last week – in which reference was made to him “telling the kaffir at the helm at the Union Buildings” that he had to come round to his way of thinking – must represent the low point of journalism in the new South Africa). And it was there in the recent failure of that most respected of jurists, Edwin Cameron, to gain a place on the Constitutional Court.
In essence it is a form of racial prejudice which has shown itself to be so virulent that, in the hands of a man with as tainted a record as Jack, it can be wielded with near- deadly effect against a woman with the background and achievements of Dolny. Again, he is not the first person to try and cover up his activities with cries of “racist”. It has become the favoured tactic of those facing corruption probes – such as Emanuel Shaw II, who tried to use it against this newspaper before we drove him out of the country. It is a tactic which should have long since been recognised and discredited.
Surely, if we South Africans have learned anything, it is the destructive effect of racism – in particular the waste of talent and of potential which it represents. The white left – at least those who survived the anti-apartheid struggle – can for the most part be regarded as fortunate in that they did not as a group suffer the material disadvantages of their black comrades in the struggle.
Many of them, like Dolny, enjoy the fruits of liberation to an extent which this newspaper regards as distasteful, particularly in view of their advantaged background and supposed idealism. But that is the way the dice have fallen. It does not, for one moment, justify a reversion to the attitudes of the past when South Africans were victimised for a happenstance of birth. Still less does it justify the trashing of those who have made a stand for justice in the past.
This unfortunate affair inevitably brings to mind questions related to the sacking of Derek Hanekom – a friend of Dolny – who may also have been a target of Jack’s attempted smear. President Thabo Mbeki would do well to clarify the matter. He should certainly take the lead in offering guidance to the nation on the wider principles. Whites as well as blacks have a contribution to make to the future of this country. Reconciliation was the great gift Nelson Mandela, as president of the African National Congress, gave to South Africa.
It is a gift which the country cannot afford to see spurned.