Hoping for the prevalence of principle in politics is a bit like expecting the lion to lie down with the lamb: it’s a lovely idea, but lousy as a prediction. We on this newspaper, however, persist in the naive hope that principle will prevail; and we have not hesitated to make of it a demand.
For this reason, if an avowedly liberal party, such as the Democratic Party, seeks to unify with a profoundly illiberal one, such as the New National Party, in a Democratic Alliance we see not principles at work but a problematic pragmatism.
If, a year later, the NNP or part of its leadership then falls into the welcoming arms of the party, the African National Congress, which led a 30-year struggle to overthrow it, we ask what political property is open for offers or up for grabs.
Notwithstanding all the chaos and splits that now affect the NNP and the DA, it is perfectly clear what property is being negotiated.
Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the NNP leader, has long shown a conspicuous appetite for the trappings of power. He wants the premiership of the Western Cape or a post in the national Cabinet. He has too little chance of achieving either through his alliance with the DP. There is no way the DP is going to offer such a manipulative and ambitious young man the Cape premiership, and the DP (or any variant of it) is probably at least two general elections away from achieving power in the country as a whole.
Unnecessary greed
The ANC leadership driven by a curious and unnecessary greed is determined that it should control the Western Cape. It has lost confidence in the ability of its hopelessly inept local leadership to deliver an ANC victory in the province, and it has evidently now concluded it must resort to other measures to achieve that control. If those means entail a pact with so unprincipled and unscrupulous a man as Van Schalkwyk has shown himself to be, then so be it. Likewise, if it is necessary to play fast and loose with the Constitution in order to help Van Schalkwyk take some of his elected public representatives along with him in this realignment (by passing a law to allow these representatives to change parties) then that, too, is fine as far as the ANC is concerned.
The extent of support in the NNP for Van Schalkwyk and his defection is unclear at this stage. Men and women who would have us believe that their word is their bond have been changing their public positions on this issue by the day, and sometimes by the hour. The legal position is also unclear. Lawyers differ on whether or not a law allowing elected public representatives to change parties between elections requires a constitutional change or not. And there are myriad other uncertainties in this bewildering circus.
The circus is the thing. We have been too prone to imagine since 1990 that liberation-movement leaders are something other than politicians. We have tended to imagine that politicians are somehow less pitiful, mealy-mouthed and venal than the rest of us in their fight for the right to dispense the public purse. We have, perhaps not altogether justifiably, placed them above the ranks of circus animals obliged to howl, or jump, or stand on their heads to win our applause.
Laughable as the spectacle of the Van Schalkwyk breakaway is, it may paradoxically be a sign that we are growing up a little as a nation. We may, henceforth, be less prone to take ourselves or our political leaders too seriously. The antics of those involved in the DA split are, in most cases, so ridiculous, their claims to being guided by principle so absurd, that we are less likely to treat them with seriousness in future.
That can only be a good thing.
Mock and deride
Scepticism has its uses: at least as much in politics as in science. It is good that we doubt our politicians, that we mock and deride them, that we scratch and irritate them, that we bait and infuriate them. They deserve nothing less.
What on earth can unite Marthinus van Schalkwyk and Blade Nzimande apart from the fact that each once believed in a ridiculous ideology?
How credible is a president who wants us to celebrate his prescriptions for our continent and the world but who determinedly resists the conclusions of best science?
How much does a government care when it can spend R50-billion on arms but cannot afford R30 to prevent the transmission from one mother to one child of HIV/Aids?
There is no surer guarantor of our democracy than humour in our politics and the crack of irony; no-one poses more danger to our freedom than the sonorous demagogue who is allowed the freedom to demand that the rest of us believe his or her propaganda. If Van Schalkwyk has taken us a little closer to that realisation, we owe him our gratitude for being such a fool and for making such a hash of his attempt to come across as something else.