/ 7 December 2004

The great non-debate

In his Nelson Mandela Memorial Lecture, Archbishop Desmond Tutu pleaded for more robust debate and suggested that we accept one another’s bona fides when differing about contentious issues. In a similar spirit, Stellenbosch University rector Chris Brink and intellectual Jakes Gerwel have welcomed the debate about the posthumous award of an honorary doctorate to the late Bram Fischer as, in Gerwel’s words, an illustration of the “broadness and liveliness of the discussion” in Afrikaans.

Unfortunately, not all those who support the award have exhibited the same attitude.

What was the Fischer debate really about? In the motivation accompanying her recommendation of the award to the university’s senate, philosophy student Yvonne Malan emphasised Fischer’s contribution to non-racialism, and his example as an Afrikaner who made a contribution to the wider South African society without denying his Afrikaans roots.

The latter point caused some raised eyebrows from people like Johann Rossouw, editor of Die Vrye Afrikaan, who wondered why Fischer’s Afrikaner background was suddenly relevant according to Malan, who, in other contexts, had described “identity politics” as “irrelevant”, and had consistently resisted the notion that Stellenbosch University should have a special link with Afrikaans.

Some who opposed the award, such as historian Hermann Giliomee and Die Burger’s Leopold Scholtz, felt that Fischer’s life-long commitment to communism and his belief in armed revolution disqualified him as an icon embodying the values of the university. Fischer’s refusal to face up to the horrors of Stalin’s rule received much prominence in their arguments. In their view, Fischer opposed one evil system (apartheid) by uncritically supporting an even more evil one.

Others aimed their criticism at the significance of the award in the present political climate. They see it as a way of currying favour with the government by honouring African National Congress heroes.

Finally, there are those who argue that honorary doctorates should be awarded for academic achievements only. In their view, Fischer did not produce an intellectual legacy that deserves an accolade of this nature.

Supporters of the award have generally not tried to answer the aforementioned arguments. The students representative council has contented itself with expressing “regret” about “opponents of transformation” who “resist the award”. Jeremy Cronin of the South African Communist Party has merely labelled the critics “old guard” and “conservative”. To paraphrase Tutu: voices are raised, but arguments are not improved. In a sense, then, the debate has not yet started.

Dr Gerrit Brand is a post-doctoral fellow in the department of philosophy at Stellenbosch University