Relations between rulers and intellectuals are often characterised by uneasiness, mistrust and, at times, outright antagonism.
Rulers crave uncritical endorsement by intellectuals, while the latter are often concerned with limiting power wielded by rulers.
To resolve this tension, many nations have evolved systems of governance in which power resides with the people. Modern democracies have gone further. They have not only limited the powers of those in authority but have also entrenched a whole range of rights of citizens. One of these is the right to free expression of ideas and beliefs.
Democracy is meaningless where this right does not exist. It is not surprising that, of all the rights, the right to express oneself is the first casualty of tyrants. Tyranny cannot tolerate a free exchange of ideas. The free exchange of ideas presupposes the acceptance of the culture of democracy. The right to free exchange cannot be confined only to those ideas we approve of. It must be defended vigorously, especially in the case of ideas we find objectionable.
In promoting democracy, columnists and commentators often raise thorny political and social issues. This involves asking probing questions, seeking clarity and speaking truth to power. Several conditions must, however, be satisfied before meaningful dialogue can take place.
First, it cannot occur in an environment characterised by dishonesty, inconsistency and intellectual arrogance. In the absence of honesty and consistency, it is impossible to sustain a rational argument. Intellectual humility demands that we appreciate that human beings are prone to systematic errors of thinking and, so, can claim no copyright on correct ideas. It is, thus, stupid for any organisation to claim it can exhaust debates internally. Also, humility removes the need to pretend to know when we do not.
Second, it is important to distinguish between statements of fact and propositions. Statements of fact must be supported by empirical evidence. Propositions require either facts or logical arguments. Bold declarations must be accompanied by the necessary argument or sufficient proofs. Without satisfying these criteria, it is impossible to have meaningful dialogue.
Understandably, columnists who write as they wish generate frustration in ruling circles. They expose themselves to virulent personal attacks. Confronted with their own inability to engage intelligently, the ruling elite resorts to labelling its critics, to uninformed assumptions about them, and to throwing mud at them. Rabelani Dagada’s contributions exemplify the stupidity of the ruling elite’s and its apologists’ responses to this column.
In “Come back to us, Brother Seepe, all will be forgiven” ([Letters] January 8), Dagada boldly claims that African National Congress communication officers are reluctant to engage me “because it will elevate the status of an African brother who is now a sell-out”. Underlying this statement is an assumption that ? either in my own personal life or in my dealings with others ? I need the endorsement of ANC hacks such as Smuts Ngonyama, Titus Mafolo, Bheki Khumalo, Nat Serache and the late Parks Mankahlana. Dagada himself may need that affirmation. But he evidently has difficulty in understanding that I, like millions of South Africans, do not.
Dagada says “it is the prerogative of every president in a democratic country to appoint ministers” ? as if I had suggested otherwise. Likewise, he implies that I suggested that Mbeki had unilaterally usurped the power to appoint premiers, director generals and mayors. I did not. But it takes a particular class of dimwit ? whose ranks Dagada is apparently determined to join ? to deny that Mbeki’s assumption of that power can have disastrous consequences for democracy and open political debate.
On the other hand, Dagada is blind to the fact that the issues I have so often raised in this column ? HIV/Aids, macro-economic policy, centralised power, and the like ? have been taken up by ANC alliance partners and the rest of civil society.
He boldly claims that, had it not been for the ANC, the likes of Xolela Mangcu and I would not be who we are. Really? Again, he assumes that, if Mangcu, you and I achieve any status or value it must be the result of the ANC. In Dagada’s moral universe, the ANC is apparently the alpha and the omega, a creator of sorts. Really? Truth is, in my case, the ANC did not contribute a cent to my education. Nor has it contributed anything to my life ? an experience common to increasing millions of South Africans. Studying is a solitary affair. Those who still prefer to toyi-toyi might have difficulty grasping that.
Having laid his hands on my resume, Dagada (“Seepe should consider his own failure to deliver”, [Letters] February 1) then asserts that, at Vista University, I failed to deliver, having earlier promised to “guide the university’s curriculum transformation”.
I also failed to rewrite study material, he says.
After an inquiry or two he would have been informed that I was a co-convener of the Vista curriculum transformation committee, that I convened the task team to prepare the university’s response to the Council of Higher Education’s report, that I am a member of the Executive and member of Senate and of Vista’s Management Committee and that I was the Senate representative on Council. Campus principals do not prepare and write study material; that is the responsibility of the teaching staff.
Dagada claims that “Seepe’s research and academic interests (cultural, social and political dimensions of mathematics and science education) have never produced tangible results”.
Really? An inquiry or two, and he would have known that, since becoming campus principal, I have presented 35 papers at national and international conferences. I have contributed chapters in and co-edited Language of Science, (Vivlia Publishers, 2000) and authored a number of refereed articles. These include: Donaldson KB & Seepe S, Antiracist Education and Curriculum Transformation for Equity and Justice in the New Millennium in International Journal of Educational Reform, United States (Volume 8, No 4, October 1999); Higher Education and Africanisation, in Perspectives in Education, University of Durban Westville (Vol 18.3, 2000); Africanisation of Knowledge: Exploring mathematical and scientific knowledge embedded in African cultural practices in African Voices in Education, Juta Publishers, 2000.
But Dagada has no regard for the rules of evidence. A fact, likewise, is a stranger to him. To expect meaningful engagement with one blinded by ideology or party loyalty is unrealistic. But we can, I suppose, live in hope.