Glenda Daniels
Crossfire
I received a phone call last week from a government official asking me why my writing was “getting more and more vicious”. I was dumbfounded and felt exasperated at the insecurity and laager mentality. Why are our leaders so unsure of themselves? Why are they so afraid of criticism? Why can’t they graciously withdraw from obviously bad policies? And why do they keep aiming their fire at us, the messengers? They need continual reminding that the media does not dream up bad news such as the arms deal fiasco; we reflect what we see happening in society. My attempts to uncover the origins of the laager mentality have been met by the refrain: “We are still in a fragile democracy.” This is fallacious. Our leaders appear to want to close ranks to achieve democracy, even if it means using undemocratic means. They expect the media to indulge them with sunshine journalism and to report with whooping hyperbole on ribbon-cutting rituals.
To achieve democracy we have to develop our democratic practice now. Near the heart of democracy lies a free and critical press. That freedom must be nurtured and developed now.
The irony is that, through its behaviour, the government threatens to make democracy fragile. On the other hand, the media and independent institutions such as trade unions, the judiciary, religious and community organisations and academic institutions are the potential sources of democracy’s strength.
Lenin said the oppressed imitate their oppressors. This may be what we are witnessing now. The defensiveness, the paranoia and the need to control are hauntingly reminiscent of the old regime. There are whiffs in the wind that Stalinism has sown its seed well in our soil. This behaviour must change if we are to establish our democracy on a firm foundation. Our leaders’ response to public disclosure of Tony Yengeni’s mysterious acquisition of a Mercedes 4×4 told a foul tale. Smuts Ngonyama, representative for the African National Congress presidency, declared: “This is a witch-hunt aimed to destabilise the ANC.” Thank heavens for the Congress of South African Trade Unions, which responded that “no stone should be left unturned” in investigating the matter. Lack of transparency over other aspects of the R43-billion arms deal is further cause for concern. Death threats to Pan Africanist Congress MP Patricia de Lille and television journalists reporting on the arms deal are even more worrying. So, too, is the introduction of the Legal Practitioners Bill, which has the effect of giving the government control of the legal profession. When the television soap opera Yizo-Yizo carried a prison rape sequence, some ANC MPs said the programme should be removed from our screens.
However, the biggest debacle of all has been the government’s stance on Zimbabwe. It has cost this country dearly. Even after the evident failure of softly-softly diplomacy, President Thabo Mbeki would have us believe that those critical of his stance on Zimbabwe wish to delude the world into believing that Zimbabwe is a province of South Africa as though world observers of Southern Africa were Martians.
Mbeki, at great cost to our region, has missed the essential point: Robert Mugabe’s crackpot policies have contributed directly to the collapse of Zimbabwe. Mbeki and Minister of Foreign Affairs Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma tell the world that they have only minor disagreements with Mugabe over trifling points of principle. The point is not lost on the world: if the South African government’s attitude to Mugabe is, in effect, that he is “one of us” who has merely gone slightly astray, then how can the world have confidence in South Africa’s declared commitment to the rule of law? You don’t invest billions of dollars in a developing country like South Africa if the rule of law and property rights are subject to the whims of sophists rather than guaranteed by clear, universal principle.
Where is greatness when you ape the vaudeville of past oppressors? Where is greatness when, at the first word of criticism, you sulk? Concern for freedom and dignity, and belief in the underlying equality of all do not allow apologies for tyrants like Mugabe. Concrete steps to remove Mugabe from power would better serve South Africa, the international community and democracy.
Moreover, we have been seriously embarrassed as a country by the pseudo-intellectual intimidation waged by the president and his confrres on HIV/Aids, first over whether HIV leads to Aids and, second, over the provision of treatment to those living with HIV or Aids.
Has Parliament become a rubber stamp for the executive? An indicator of a healthy democracy is an MP’s concern over whether he or she will be returned to Parliament by the electorate. What we have, though, are parliamentarians more concerned about the approval of the president.
Race, as under the old regime, has become a cheap clarion call to abandon serious thought and forget our common humanity and common destiny in South Africa. It has become, instead, a tribal drum to summon sectarian instincts.
Stalinism was a perversion of the Marxist intellectual tradition whose contribution, despite the socialist experiment’s shortcomings, it would be facile to ignore. By asserting that history has design and purpose, Marxism sought to provide a basis for secular morality that doesn’t sacrifice principle in favour of short-term benefit.
Ours has been a history of struggle, a struggle for rights for all, and for all time. These are not rights to be frittered away by cheap, transient loyalties to the incumbents of political power. The struggle for freedom in South Africa and for a better world produced some of the most wonderful people. Should all this be sacrificed in the service of pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-statesmanship? We need a sense of community, of destiny, of confidence that, if we could conquer the monster of apartheid, we can now build a society that is a light, not only to own selves, but to all societies struggling to find a better way. The media is part of this making of a better society. So too are trade unions, the judiciary, universities and religious organisation even tiddly-wink societies and bridge clubs. Old ways of (not) seeing, such as Stalinism, are redundant. We must assert principles now or risk their being lost forever. And don’t call me vicious or a liberal for saying so.