NO blows BARRED
Sipho Seepe
To defend the indefensible one must resort to some twisted logic. To maintain and reproduce its values the apartheid government relied on the big lie of white supremacy. To sustain this big lie it had to marshal other lies. This included misrepresentation of the Bible to provide theological justification of its policies. It was even prepared to defy the best scientific world opinion on the matter.
The new ruling elite has taken lessons from the erstwhile apartheid masters. To explain its approach to the challenges of our times it has come up with policies and political positions, some of which are not only intellectually unsustainable but are proving untenable.
To dismiss and rebut intellectual critique and disapproval of some of its social and economic policies, the ruling elite has had to advance some convoluted theoretical insights/propositions.
The first proposition relates to the notion that there is logic for scientists, and a different one for non-scientists. The fact that some of the best scientists were philosophers (and vice versa) escapes its spin doctors.
Related to this is the suggestion that syllogistic and sound reasoning are inadequate to resolve political differences. Such an approach, we are told, is incompatible with “politics as a collective endeavour”. The latter is advanced to explain why members of the ruling elite could boldly dismiss the Medical Research Council (MRC) report on HIV/Aids as not credible.
The MRC report advances a view different from that of the collective reading of the ruling class. The fact that the political collective’s association with the medical laboratory is infinitesimal is immaterial.
The report is after all a product of scientists. By extension of this logic, the best scientific evidence should be consigned to the rubbish bin. If members of the ruling elite can proclaim themselves arbiters on what constitutes scientifically credible research, we may as well close universities and medical schools.
At another level, the current furore exposes the ruling elite’s failure to understand that scientific institutions exist to provide expert advice for the development of society. They are funded precisely because governments are not in the business of doing cutting-edge research.
Besides, politicians are not appointed on the basis of their scientific expertise and excellence. The fact that most politicians are ignorant of scientific matters should not be seen as a bad reflection on them. To enter into a scientific debate when you know little can only result in one making a fool of oneself. Scientific debates should be left between peers with an equal understanding but a differing view on issues.
Under the rubric of “politics as a collective endeavour”, disciplined members of the party are expected to rally around the scientific nonsense spewed by President Thabo Mbeki on HIV/Aids. The fact that lives are lost as a result of this misguided view is immaterial.
In this context the collective will of the political party takes precedence over right or wrong, true or false. In reality, the so-called collective will is nothing more than the organisation’s expression of the president’s views on most matters. Might, power and privilege determine right.
While advancing political collectivism, those rallying around Mbeki’s misguided views have yet to explain how ANC branch leaders, a majority of whom are not scientists, could succeed in persuading Mbeki to accept that HIV is the single cause of Aids, and that it is the leading killer in South Africa. So far the world’s best medical scientists have failed.
Clearly, this seductive proposition is typified by the illogic of its logic.
This conflation of matters political with the scientific enterprise has the effect of undermining scientists and the scientific method. Aside from undermining the good strategies that the government has put in place and sending mixed signals to those involved in alleviating and eradicating the HIV/Aids epidemic, it further erodes foreign investor confidence.
Sacrificing rigour on the altar of “politics as a collective endeavour” has been costly. For instance, the macroeconomic growth, employment and reconstruction strategy foundered because, among other things, it failed to address the theoretical assumptions informing it.
These were that the government should implement a set of structural adjustment policies; this would attract foreign investment and this in turn would lead to higher economic growth rates and employment levels. Experience indicates that these assumptions were tenuous at best. Foreign direct investment has not been forthcoming and instead of job creation the economy has shed thousands of jobs.
It was again “politics as a collective” that dismissed concerns raised by scholars with regard to the hasty implementation of Curriculum 2005. After investing time and enormous amounts of money, these scholars were vindicated by the Curriculum Review Committee established by the education minister.
The notion of “politics as a collective” may sound high and lofty, but it is nothing more than a sophisticated way of cringing before the powerful.
In such a context it is highly advantageous to betray the weak. The fact that the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party, both members of the ANC political alliance, have publicly taken a position on matters such as HIV/Aids and the government’s macroeconomic policy exposes the bankruptcy of hiding behind “politics as a collective endeavour”. It is sheer political cowardice.
While we hide behind “politics as a collective endeavour” instead of telling the truth about HIV/Aids, the epidemic will continue to wreak havoc in our communities. The effect of this “crisis of truth telling” does not only lead to the devaluation of the scientific enterprise but of life itself.
Ngugi W A Thiongo makes this point sharply in his remarks on The Intellectual Legacy of Pan-Africanism. He writes: “At a glance, our post-independence has seen the devaluation of intellect and intellectual achievement, and worst of all, the devaluation of African lives … The questioning mind has become suspect. The mind that wants to be judged against the highest possible professional standards is suspect. Originality is even more suspect. Many intellectuals have been hounded to prisons, detention camps, to exile and often into their graves”.
Should we expect the same of South Africa? Instead of using their fine intellect to advance the course of democracy and development, the defenders of misguided views and policies do a great disservice to this country and its people.