Who said this: "Legislation must gradually but purposefully ensure that each section of the ... population should as far as practicable, enjoy a share of each of the major occupations according to its proportion in the ... population"?

It was the architect of apartheid, Hendrik Verwoerd.

Well, not quite. There was one small difference.  Where the ellipses (...) are in the above quote, Verwoerd inserted the word "white".

It shows what happens when apartheid thinking is taken to its logical conclusion. Verwoerd wrote these words in a notorious treatise on the number of Jewish South Africans who had become successful business people. Verwoerd believed it was wrong that they had done so "in excess" of their "proportion" of the population. His solution? Preventing Jews from getting business licences until every component of the white population (divided into their exact ethnic components) was represented in top business echelons in direct proportion to their numbers. Black South Africans, of course, did not feature in Verwoerdian thinking because he did not consider them to be South Africans.

Verwoerd must feel vindicated today, as the ANC takes his policy of "representivity" to its logical conclusions. He would have felt proud of Mr Justice Isaac Madondo's performance before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) last week.

During his JSC interview for the position of KwaZulu-Natal Judge President, Judge Madondo told commissioners he did not think an Indian candidate would be suitable. When asked whether it was the right time to appoint an Indian judge president he answered: "I don't think so. We still have things to address, imbalances - all kinds of things which need more insight, which a person who is not [a black] African cannot be privy to. Indians only represent 8% of the population, while 86% of the population was black," said Madondo.

"We were oppressed, but not in the same way," he added.

To people like Judge Madondo, Indian South Africans were good enough to qualify as black during the struggle against apartheid, but are now not black enough to qualify for positions on merit. It was to the JSC's credit that they ignored Madondo's race card and nominated Judge Chiman Patel as the new KwaZulu-Natal Judge President.

But in fact, neither the question nor the answer should have been ignored. The question (whether an Indian would be suitable) was posed by MP Koos van der Merwe, a former member of Andries Treurnicht's Conservative Party who still imposes racial identities on people to determine what they can and cannot do. That kind of question should be ruled out of order by its chair, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, if the JSC is to fulfil its function of nominating the most suitable people for elevation to the bench.

Not so. In fact, quite the opposite. Judging from reports during the past week, it appears that our Chief Justice not only supports Judge Madondo's analysis, but takes it a step further. In a widely quoted public lecture, Judge Mogoeng is reported to have urged the JSC to scrutinise black judicial candidates to distinguish between those who were merely black, and those who were genuine "transformation agents".

Just as the practice of fronting had permeated black economic empowerment, he said, the same could happen to the judiciary if the JSC did not thoroughly screen black candidates. He was also quoted as saying: "It is transformation agents that we are looking for here, it is not just about colour, it is not just about gender. I believe that going forward, we really need to scrutinise all those candidates who come forward hoping that because of the pigmentation of their skin it ought to be obvious, where there is a need for race representation, that they are going to be appointed."

In other words, Mr Justice Mogoeng, using perfect Verwoerdian logic, took it upon himself to distinguish between an ostensibly black applicant and a real black applicant for the judiciary. His comments are arguably the most ironic in the history of our democracy: the more black people concur with Hendrik Verwoerd's representivity logic, the more genuinely black they are considered to be. Verwoerd could never have imagined he would outlive, by so long, the party he once led.

But this dangerous argument is not limited to the ANC. Even in the Democratic Alliance, Verwoerdian thinking sometimes rears its ugly head. Thus it was that Masizole Mnqasela, a DA MP, made a fool of himself and the Party on prime time radio by stating that Lindiwe Mazibuko was not black enough to become the DA's Parliamentary leader.

Calling her nomination "window dressing" he said:  "When you close your eyes and listen to Lindiwe Mazibuko when she speaks you would say a white person is talking to you."

Taken aback, the interviewer commented:  "That is the most bizarre thing I have heard forever and a day - and you are a DA MP!?"

Later in the discussion, the interviewer returned to the theme and asked: "What the heck were you possibly meaning by saying that if you had to close your eyes and hear Lindiwe speak you wouldn't even know she is black?  What are you saying with that remark?"

Mnqasela then began a lengthy race analysis, concluding with the words: "This is window dressing, in the sense that it is not diversity at best. Diversity goes with many other components, not a sheer skin colour. Otherwise we will compromise the very objective that we need to achieve by attracting black voters. Black voters know what they want."

Of course, Mnqasela implied that he was the only legitimate arbiter of "what blacks want." I may have missed something, but not once during her campaign did Lindiwe or her supporters ever say she should be elected leader of the caucus because she is black.

Masizole did Athol a great disservice by bringing Verwoerdian logic into his campaign. Not only were these remarks an insult to Athol's long and outstanding track record of non-racialism and commitment to the values of the DA, but they proved to be a tide-turner in the campaign. Every member of caucus understands that there is no place for such racism in the DA.

But sadly, Verwoerdian thinking is still deeply engrained in the broader South African psyche. It is the default position of those across the entire spectrum who define a person's identity by their skin colour, and then claim to know what that person thinks and wants, on every issue.

This pre-modern thinking should have gone to the grave with Hendrik Verwoerd. It has no place in the new South Africa. Let alone in the DA.

This article by Helen Zille first appeared in SA Today, the online newsletter of the leader of the Democratic Alliance.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter