blind
Anthea Jeffery Crossfire
To most South Africans, the word “racism” probably has its conventional meaning – connoting intentionally disparate treatment founded on race. Given our apartheid history, it refers to laws that deprive black people of the vote, or bar them from owning land, or exclude them from “white” schools and hospitals. It also means the bigotry of private persons who deny blacks access to restaurants and resorts, or who insult, assault or kill black people because they are black.
A new conception of racism has also been developed. On this definition, racism has expanded beyond intentionally hurtful treatment. It encompasses even the use of race-neutral criteria (experience for management jobs, security for bank loans) that are more difficult for blacks than whites to meet. These criteria are seen as having a disparate effect on black people which prevents them from attaining their due: a proportion of management jobs, university admissions, bank loans or insurance policies that is equal to their proportion of the population. On this basis, racism is presumed present wherever demographic proportionality is absent. The remedy for conventional racism is the colour-blind ideal, where all individuals enjoy equal rights under the law without reference to race. The remedy for the new conception of racism is to classify individuals by race, so that those identified as black can be exempted from normal criteria and accorded preferential treatment until “equality of outcomes” between white and black groups has been reached. It was the moral vision of a colour-blind society that motivated millions of South Africans to oppose apartheid. It was the colour-blind ideal that was finally attained in 1994 under a Constitution that entrenched equality before the law. Now the colour-blind ideal is being undermined by a shift towards the new conception of racism. This shift is reflected in new legislation – particularly in the racial classification and preferences explicitly required by the Employment Equity Act, and in the similar measures implicitly mandated by the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act to attain “equality in terms of outcomes”. It is further reflected in the administrative decisions of the state, especially in the targets being applied to change the racial make-up of the public service. It is evident, too, in President Thabo Mbeki’s “two nations” analogy, and his division of the erstwhile “rainbow nation” into two polarised groups – one rich and white, the other black and poor. It is reflected in the African National Congress’s determination to put an end to the “over- representation” of whites among those with wealth or education, or who wield economic power, or who influence political debate. Debate about this shift has been faltering at best. It has been dampened by deployment of the “racist” tag. It has also been hampered by confusion about what “racism” means – a confusion compounded by eliding the “old” and “new” conceptions of the term. To deal effectively with racism in South Africa, we need to separate out three different issues: l countering conventional racism; l overcoming the apartheid legacy; and l assessing whether a shift to the “new” racism is either necessary or likely to prove beneficial.
Most South Africans are likely to agree on the urgent need to end the scourge of intentionally disparate treatment, based on race. This can be achieved – and on a colour- blind basis – by effectively applying existing remedies. Murder, rape, assault and racial insult across the colour line are already prohibited by common law. Exclusion of people from resorts or rented accommodation by virtue of their race is already barred under the Constitution.
Education and effective leadership can underscore the inherent dignity of every individual, while mutual understanding can be fostered by stressing common concerns and avoiding generalised “racist” accusations. Most South Africans are also likely to endorse the need for urgent action to redress apartheid backlogs in education, health care, infrastructure, land ownership and so on. There is broad support across the colour line for these “Reconstruction and Development Programme” objectives. Criticism of the government is not for setting these goals, but for failing sufficiently to attain them through ill- conceived policies and erratic performance. Focused and effective initiatives are now urgently required to overcome specific problems, such as high rates of illiteracy, declining matric pass rates, inadequate infrastructure, high infant mortality rates and increasing Aids-related deaths. Again, this can be done on a colour-blind basis, though beneficiaries would mainly be black. None of these problems will be easy to surmount, but if the government would apply best practice, use all available resources to optimum effect and draw all South Africans into a common endeavour to overcome these challenges, important progress could be made. More jobs are also needed for the millions of people now unemployed. Nothing will help as much in restoring dignity or promoting better living standards on a sustainable basis. Hence, the government must simultaneously focus on bringing down barriers to direct investment and labour absorption, and on encouraging high rates of economic growth. In this it would also enjoy wide support across the colour line. In motivating the shift to the “new” racism, the government rightly points to the apartheid legacy – but wrongly implies that this can be overcome by race-based preferences alone. It also paints a static picture of black-white inequality, and suggests that only its race-based policies can “kickstart” redistribution and overcome black poverty. It overlooks the fact that racial inequality has been diminishing for three decades, and that the African proportion of the richest 20% of households grew from 4% in 1975 to 30% in 1996. It also downplays the fact that the black-black gap has widened, partly because of upward mobility for some black people, partly because so many more black people face destitution through unemployment. The solution to the problem of black poverty is not to give black people a preferential claim to management jobs, government contracts or bank loans and insurance policies. The poor will not benefit from these. Instead, their problems can be overcome only by addressing apartheid backlogs, stimulating growth and generating jobs.
Promoting the growth of a black middle class is important too, but policies based on skewed diagnoses of the obstacles to this are likely to yield few lasting gains. For example, the small number of black managers in private enterprise is a problem of supply, not of demand. It can best be countered by outreach, training, and a willingness to appoint wherever possible on proven competence rather than formal qualification. None of these approaches offers a “quick fix”. But then, no quick fixes are likely to be effective. On the contrary, the attempt to implement them is likely to make existing problems worse. Anthea Jeffery is special research consultant for the South African Institute of Race Relations