The recent and continuing overtures by the African National Congress bosses to black intellectuals, such as President Thabo Mbeki’s meeting with opinion makers late last year, is an interesting development. It comes at a time when the ruling party is faced with a number of crises on the political, economic, moral and intellectual fronts.
Politically, the significantly decreased voter turnout bears testimony to a growing dissatisfaction with the ruling party’s failure to deliver on promises. There is also simmering discontent with the party’s obsession with power, manifest in the tendency to impose leadership on the electorate.
On the economic front, the anticipated foreign direct investment, job creation, and economic growth have not materialised. Instead joblessness, crime and unemployment continue unabated. The moral high ground that characterised the anti-apartheid rhetoric freedom of expression, people-driven democracy has given way to power games and intrigue as comrades vie for positions.
Overnight, those who shouted the loudest about freedom of expression have been paralysed into silence by the dictates of the party discipline. The sidelining of the views and wishes of the people contributes directly to the government’s questionable responses to the moral challenges of the present. The government’s failure to stamp out corruption and incompetence, and its decision to spend R44-billion on arms in the face of gripping poverty and developmental challenges are all morally unjustifiable.
Mbeki’s stubborn pursuit of the eccentric idea that HIV does not cause Aids, while millions are dying, has disgraced not only himself but also the rest of his government minions who were unable to come to his rescue. The crisis of leadership is not made easier by the ruling party bosses’ propensity to appoint leaders on the basis of their demonstrable uncritical loyalty and/or length of service to the party.
Given that most of the political leaders lack the expertise and skills necessary to meet the socio-economic challenges of the country, one can only hope that these overtures reflect a growing, if somewhat belated, maturity by political bosses that they do not have the all the answers. The overtures are an improvement from the ritual lambasting of black intellectuals by the president.
He has repeatedly bemoaned the absence of black intellectuals from policy debates, suggested that they do not read and that some of them are an embarrassment to the black community. The irony of it is that when it comes to policy formulation it is the white experts that the government chooses to rely on.
A further irony is that the invitation to black intellectuals comes at a time when black institutions, under the pretext of institutional collaboration, are threatened with virtual closure and/or incorporation in historically white universities. While the above gives a somewhat benevolent interpretation of these overtures, it is important to appreciate the inherent dangers. Before addressing these it is important to briefly consider what intellectuals do.
Intellectuals perform different roles in society. Some provide the dominant class with forms of moral, ideological and intellectual leadership, and are thus propagators of its ideologies. But others do not endear themselves to those in power nor try to win their favour. Their place in society is to raise embarrassing questions and their public performances cannot be condensed into some slogan or orthodox party line.
Describing this role of such intellectuals, Edward Said notes: “There are no rules by which intellectuals can know what to say or do; nor for the true secular intellectual are there any gods to be worshipped and looked to for unwavering guidance.” These individuals speak truth to power and in carrying out this responsibility no world power is too big and imposing to be criticised.
As a result they risk (some might say invite) being burned at the stake, ostracised and crucified. With regard to the ruling party’s overtures, the first concern relates to an attempt to racialise intellectual work, or how else should we interpret the exclusion of white intellectuals? What happened to Mbeki’s all-embracing notion that “everyone is an African”? Are there developmental issues and challenges that are no-go areas for white intellectuals?
Or are they excluded because they are likely to raise embarrassing questions and expose the intellectual bankruptcy of the ruling class? For example, it was white intellectuals who in the main revealed that Mbeki’s reading of text is questionable and coined the term Mbeki-ism (a malady in which the sufferer quotes without understanding or uses quotes at inappropriate occasions).
While it may be true that most white intellectuals were either supporters or apologists of the apartheid regime, a blanket exclusion of white intellectuals is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate of creating a non-racial democracy.
Or should we interpret the exclusion of white intellectuals as a rescue mission for black intellectuals who find themselves marginalised by the hegemonic practices of the so-called white establishment? Overtures such as these could have an unintended effect in which black intellectuals are seen as incompetent to claim intellectual space for themselves this leading to further denigration of black intellectuals.
Secondly, the act of selecting intellectuals risks not only proscribing intellectual work but may also be divisive. It is ironic that the party hacks making the selection are not known for their intellectual competence. What criteria are used to select so-called black intellectuals? Will those critical of the ruling party be invited?
If not, then it is safe to assume that party bosses are looking for minstrels to trumpet their policies. The handpicking of participants and the consequent absence of robust engagement have led to the untimely wilting of the “African renaissance” — its only visible remnant being perfunctory references in speeches by politicians.
What happened to the ruling party’s own intellectuals? If party discipline and party unity bind them to silence, would a similar fate be visited upon these unsuspecting black intellectuals by virtue of both their participation and appeals to racial solidarity?
Can they remain intellectuals if they are expected to compromise commitment to public engagement in favour of debate in select circles? What are the prospects for policy change when the labour movement, with a sizeable constituency, has failed to influence and impact on policies such as the growth, employment and redistribution strategy?
Lastly, the party leader’s track record of disregarding expert opinion and his latest display of contempt for world opinion, even on matters beyond his educational qualification and proficiency, suggest that such overtures must be approached cautiously.