WEAK ARGUMENTS TO SHIELD ANC FROM CRITICISM: A RESPONSE
Writing in response to my article that appeared a few days before on Politicsweb.co.za Linda Nobaza, a PhD candidate in the department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematices in the University of the Western Cape, who also refers to him/herself as a Black Professional challenged ( at least that is how the heading of the article implies) the "weak arguments" that I supposedly advanced under the heading:" Black suffering should not be used to shield the ANC from criticism".
The sub-heading to the main one goes "Linda Nobaza says Dinga Nkhwashu's weak arguments have thrown an important topic in the dustbin of mythology! Really and which important topic?
Firstly let me indicate that I celebrate debate and engagement, most specially it is for the benefit of the national discourse. The attempt by the author, however, to portray my article as an attempt to shield the ANC from criticism is neither based on fact nor accurate.
Those who have read my articles as far back as 2009 or so would readily attest to my unapologetic and uncompromising stance in slating some of the things that the ruling party (the ANC) has done or that I opined was either the direct or indirect result of their action. That said the purpose of this article is not to defend myself as a person as the issue at hand (at least in so far as it relates to the matter of manufacturing consent) is of critical importance and should not be lost in the sea of small chatter, finger pointing and or chest beating.
The fact that the author wrote the article (the misdirected and misinformed contents notwithstanding) encourages me and gives me hope that we can, at least, "ground with my brothers" as Dr. Walter Rodney would say.
That said I think it would be an injustice to the issue that I raised regarding how public opinion is shaped by a host of role players who are serving interests of their own and not the poor. It is solely for that reason and to keep the correct debate on the table that I am directly responding to the allegations made.
Let me preface my response by pointing out that every person's view of the world and issues is tainted by their "prejudices", which may range from upbringing, personal experience, attitude etc. As the Irish singer Van Morrison would say: there are two kind of truths. The author of the article, Linda Nobaza's key prejudices seem to include the following-
1. his / her hatred of the ANC as a ruling party. I am saying this because in the article I never shielded the ANC nor praised it. In fact I save the harshest criticism for the organization and specifically raise issue about their understanding of what the implications of governance are.
It is a view that I have held, (my membership of the organization for which I will not apologize, notwithstanding), and continue to hold that view.
2. his/ her association with one of the institutions that house the research unit of one of the researchs that I cite as an example.
3. the apparent disgruntlement with the ANC government for not appointing black CFO's in key parastatal. I can only sympathize with the author as a "Black Professional in the field of Finance". For the author's information I have and continue to fight huge and "career limiting" battles with the self same institutions for failing to engage black owned professional firms and companies and thereby consigning them to the fringes. I even wrote an article about that.
Worse I was even visited by a "messenger" from one of the highest political offices in one province for writing and complaining about this and was warned to stop what I was doing if I wanted to do business with the government. The response was for the messenger to tell his bosses to go fly!
That said I have already been "outed" by the author in so far as my prejudices are concerned: I am a member of the ANC. Guilty as charged, I plead and without any remorse or apology at all!
I will now proceed to address myself to the issues raised;-
My shoddy job trying to defend the ANC being unfortunate: in my view what is unfortunate is a PhD student who completely misread an article that deals with the role of the media and other civil society organizations in shaping public perceptions or what I term "manufacturing consent".
Nowhere in the article did I defend the ANC's record in government or as a party. As indicated elsewhere above I in fact take it to task. The article is not about the ANC at all.
The article "Blacks outshines whites" and my being mischievous and lacking reading ability: let me first point out that the article in question relates to the so called black middle class' spending patterns. However I am baffling by what George Orwell refers to as "double think" by the author of the article. In Orwellian terms double think means the ability to hold two contradictory views at the same time and believing both of them.
The author slates and disputes my assertion that the specific aspect of the research I referred to in my article relates to use of money ("spending") but goes on to quote "Prof. Simpson" referring to "discerning CONSUMERS who are discerning about PURCHASES! How one purchase without spending money one cannot understand!
In the opening paragraph of the article the author make reference to honest and serious analysis, the latter skill which they conveniently fail to exercise when it comes to the research.
The CDE Research Report on black graduates and employment: in this regard I am being accused of distorting the outcome of the research. If that is the case then the person who rightfully deserve the accusation is Ann Bernstein, the author of the self same report. After the release of the report she was extensively quoted and interviewed on the subject, including on Talk Radio 702 and she stated, rather emphatically, that the story of black graduates being unemployed is a myth that needed to be dealt with.
Those are her views and I believe her but the reality on the ground is different.
Own goal on white consultants: this rather unfortunate accusation is premised on the prejudice that I refer to elsewhere above, that I am an ANC apologist and since no plausible argument is advanced I will pause here on the issue.
The author takes exception to the mischievous use of racism to cover the incompetence of ANC cadres deployed to leadership position: first of all my article does not purport nor is it a racist one. It is extremely naïve of anyone to enter into a terrain where they have scant or limited exposure to like the author seem to be doing. It is an incontrovertible fact that economics in this country are fashioned on racial lines and there is a clear historical reason.
This is a fact acknowledged by everybody including white people and with that material resources comes the ability to own and control certain instruments of social engagements and influence including media and other strategic assets. In fact when I read this part I was sadly reminded of Alex Carey's book: Taking the Risk Out of Democracy. But most importantly the tone and the contents of the article of Linda Nobaza confirms the success of the "manufacturing consent" project.
My defence of the "Secrecy Bill": The author seem to have no plausible and valid counterargument to the arguments advanced in this regard except to make reference to the fact that COSATU also opposed the bill as if there is anything special about it.
However, to help the debate, one must assist the author and indicate that COSATU and the ANC are in alliance and that means they are not one and the same party. It also mean that COSATU is entitled to hold a view contrary to the ANC position, irrespective of how wrong it may be.
Last but not least the author accuses an average ANC member (read myself) of believing that policy/ law making is rooted on the trust of the executive to govern honestly. Without in anyway succumbing to the temptation to lecture the author on the difference between law and policy making ( which are different as day is to night) and how democracies function I can only note my disappointment in yet another attempt to waddle on matters to which the author clearly has no or at the very least limited understanding-separation of powers etc..
My doing a disservice to the topic, defending the ANC (again) and being dishonest in tackling the topic: the purpose of my writing the article was to provoke a debate on the role of the protagonists I referred to in shaping public opinion, what motivates the way they coin their message and the ultimate effect thereof on ordinary citizens.
I think I have succeeded in doing that. My fervent hope is that the "other energetic South Africans" that Linda Nobaza extol to "test the validity of whether South African media manufactures consent" do add value to the discussion and not parade their hatred of the ANC and use it to attack the messenger and not the message.
If that happens then I would have made a contribution to the national discourse and the "groundings with my brothers" as Dr. Walter Rodney would say.
The writer ( Mat. Cert. (Matric Certificate), Bondzeni High School, Mpumalanga) is a member of the ANC. He writes in his personal capacity.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
