Unwarranted media rejection of the DA difference
This week the Financial Times (FT) in London joined the South African media’s chorus of condemnation for the decision by the Democratic Alliance (DA) to adopt race-neutral policies of redress for apartheid’s manifold injustices.
An FT article on Mbali Ntuli’s challenge to John Steenhuisen for the position of DA leader implicitly endorses Ntuli’s perspective. As she sees it, the DA is now ignoring the black majority, can no longer credibly challenge the floundering African National Congress (ANC), and is ‘putting itself in a corner’ by ‘minimising the racial character of SA’s inequality’.
Ntuli goes so far as to claim that the DA will now be ‘going out on the ground and telling someone whose child has drowned in a pit toilet…that they are in that situation because they didn’t work hard enough, or life was hard’. The party will overlook the real reason for people’s suffering, which is that ‘they’re black’.
Though the FT article makes it clear that these are Ntuli’s views, it cites no contrary perspective. Instead, it quotes political analyst Ralph Mathekga as saying that Ntuli is unlikely to win the DA leadership contest, despite her broader electoral appeal, because Steenhuisen favours ‘an old guard’ seeking to ‘shore up the party’s traditional white vote’.
Ever since the DA recommitted itself to non-racialism – a founding value of South Africa’s democracy – media outrage at its decision has been astonishingly shrill. Journalists and other commentators have claimed that the decision entrenches race ‘denialism’, takes the party ‘back by half a century’, and reveals a ‘Trumpian turn’ (whatever this last might mean).