Steven Friedman worm’s eye view We continue to mention race in public, but not to talk about it. For those of us who have argued that we do not acknowledge race publicly as much as we should, the clash between President Thabo Mbeki and opposition leader Tony Leon should, in theory, be a breath of fresh air. On the contrary: it is a symptom, not a solution. More was at stake than the desire of two politicians to play to their galleries. But the exchange still showed the degree to which racial symbols and emotions obscure debate on national questions and lead us down blind alleys.
Leon is entitled to claim that Mbeki is obsessed with finding “African solutions” whether or not these address problems. But he either does not know or care that phrasing his attack in that way is certain to press racial buttons. Many black intellectuals and politicians believe that white suburbanites are, deep down, contemptuous of Africa and Africans. That Leon’s speech would appear to be a put-down of the continent and most of its inhabitants was therefore probably inevitable.
Since the opposition leader is an intelligent man, his protest that he was not expressing prejudice is either disingenuous – or it demonstrates, once again, that many of our liberals remain unable to understand how understandably sensitive to race prejudice its victims are. Very often, the way in which the government’s liberal critics say things is a far greater cause of conflict than what they say. More sensitivity to where people on the “other side” are coming from would enable liberalism to make a far more credible contribution to national debate than it is making now. For his part, Mbeki reacted with an equally stock response – aggressive defensiveness. However insensitive Leon was, his remarks were not overtly racist. And yet the president chose to take up a sizeable chunk of an address on an important topic, the role of black intellectuals, to denounce Leon as a symbol of racism. Mbeki’s topic, and the fact that the general theme of his address was that black intellectuals were aping white values, presumably by not giving his government its due support, may help explain why he launched into the denunciation. It may have been designed less to reach Leon and his supporters – the president is an extremely intelligent man and is well aware that none of them are likely to be persuaded – but to strengthen what seemed to be a call for greater conformity from black thinkers and opinion formers. “See what you are associating with,” the speech implied, “if you do not endorse my and my government’s agenda.”
Defensiveness about racism is a common theme in our politics. While black suspicions that many government critics are motivated by deep-seated racial biases are often accurate, accusations of racism are all too often used to deflect attention from failings and to discredit critics. And, as we saw in Mbeki’s address, the “race card” is not used against whites alone: the legitimacy of black critics can be undermined by implying that they have imbibed white ways of thinking. Indeed, since the government relies far more on black than on white support, complaints of racism are often directed more at critical black people than at the ostensible white targets.
Inevitably, neither Leon’s speech nor Mbeki’s response does anything to help us tackle race as a problem. They do not weaken the attitudes noted here; rather, they do much to reinforce them. And so they make it more difficult for us to pursue democratic debate and to tackle our problems. Certainly, as this column has argued before, if we are to begin moving beyond our current state in which racial attitudes hinder our ability to progress, we do need to talk about race; part of the liberal insensitivity lies precisely in assuming that racial feelings have somehow disappeared. But we need to talk about it in a particular way, one which is designed to move beyond the problem, not to reinforce it. If politicians representing white constituencies want to make a useful contribution to the discussion, they need to acknowledge that racial prejudices still run deep among those they represent and that their black counterparts are not being paranoid when they complain that racism is still alive. And, while they have no need to mute their criticisms of government performance, they do need to understand that the way in which they phrase what they say can play an important role in heightening or reducing tension. More generally, they need to signal that they acknowledge that racism is a continuing problem, but to insist that those they represent have legitimate interests and concerns that need to be taken seriously if whites are to make a useful and enthusiastic contribution to our new society. Black leaders, for their part, need to realise that there is a large difference between drawing attention to racism and using it as a bludgeon to still critics, black as well as white. Black public figures who are concerned to fight racism rather than use it as a convenient tool to bolster their power – and there are many – will draw a distinction between racists and critics. Equally importantly, they will welcome the expression of white prejudices and fears if they are raised in an attempt to negotiate or resolve them. Given our divisions, the easiest route for politicians and other figures is to use race as a means of polishing their marbles with their constituency and increasing their hold over it. But, while that may help them in the short term, it does nothing for the country: we face many challenges, but race remains our biggest problem because it is the issue which most prevents us from finding solutions. We will remain hamstrung by race until we discuss racism in a way that acknowledges that it is a problem – but that there are ways of rising above it without denying its existence or wishing away the racial feelings which shape the views of most of us. The forthcoming conference on racism would be a good place to start. The signs do not seem promising – the Mbeki/Leon exchange suggests that the gathering will again merely confirm the problem rather than point to a solution. But it need not be so. For politicians who want history to remember them kindly as leaders who rose above short- term advantage to make the promise of non- racial democracy a reality, there is still time to launch us on a new path by making the conference a platform for a national discussion on racism which will be a dialogue, not a diatribe.