Introduction

In last week's article, I looked at two fundamental constraints on public debate in South Africa today, namely: how political correctness subverts our reasoning, on the one hand, and how the ANC's misuse of language affects the meaning of debate, on the other.

This week, we turn our attention to some possible remedies, and suggest a number of ways in which public debate can be strengthened and reinvigorated.

To do this, it is important to understand what we mean by ‘public debate', as it is an ambiguous phrase, open to interpretation. In so doing, we can approach the problem from a slightly different angle.

Perhaps the definitive liberal position on this issue is found in John Stuart Mill's seminal work ‘On Liberty', published in 1859. Many people attribute the phrase "a marketplace of ideas" to Mill, yet - while it certainly captures the essence of his argument - it was, in fact, first used by the U.S. Supreme Court, as late as 1967. Nevertheless, as I say, it is a good starting point from which we can begin to craft a definition, at least so far as the DA is concerned.

Mill puts it like this:

"In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and to expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner."

In short, Mill was arguing for an environment in which every idea can be heard. The content of each idea will naturally vary - some ideas will be compelling and reasonable, others weak and irrational - but each would have the space to be put forward and judged; and none would be silenced before they were expressed. (Mill did have exceptions to this, as does our Constitution: speech intended as an incitement to harm others, for example, should not be permitted but otherwise, all ideas should start from an equal footing.) Such an environment - a ‘marketplace of ideas' - would define the nature of public debate in an Open Opportunity Society for All.

It immediately becomes apparent how important reason - the subject of last week's newsletter - is, because the ability to properly judge an idea, to assess its logic and the evidence upon which it relies, is essential to distinguishing a good idea from a bad one. Also apparent, are the two areas of public debate in South Africa which need to be strengthened: first, ensuring that all ideas have the same space in which to be heard and, second, ensuring that the public at large and civil society in particular have the means to properly assess, analyse and critique ideas. As we dealt with the latter last week, let us now turn our attention to the former.

Strengthening South Africa's public debate

It is easy enough to say that all ideas should start from an equal footing, but how does one achieve that in practical terms? There are several fundamental considerations which need to be addressed before any practical interventions become realistic, and these revolve primarily around the ANC's attitude towards public debate and the contestation of ideas.

Consider the following developments, policy proposals and recently advocated or adopted legislation by the ruling party:

* A media tribunal: Proposed and adopted as a resolution by the ANC, at its Polokwane conference last year, the ruling party proposes a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT) which would act to regulate the print media and make it accountable to Parliament.

* The Film and Publications Amendment Act: Initially the Act proposed a form of pre-publication censorship. An administrative body, conducted by officials, would approve content.

* The Protection of Information Bill:. Helen Zille has put it like this: "Under this proposed legislation, the publishing of ‘sensitive information', defined as threatening the ‘national interest', will be a criminal offence if the intention is to ‘prejudice the state.' Included among matters in the national interest are ‘defence and security plans', ‘significant political and economic relations with international organisations and foreign governments' and ‘details of criminal investigations'."

* The Broadcasting Amendment Bill: The bill proposes the establishment of an "appointing body" which would act to both appoint and remove members of the SABC Board on the advice of Parliament. It would consist of "the President acting in consultation with the Speaker of the National Assembly".
* An ANC-run and owned newspaper: An idea often mooted and increasingly gaining currency in ANC circles.

The ruling party has attempted (often very poorly) to justify each of these as perfectly innocent and well-meaning interventions intended to improve and strengthen the media (in many ways, the forum in which the majority of public debate takes place). And while each of them is individually problematic, collectively they paint a far more ominous picture; for they point to a mindset which is intent on restricting public debate, controlling ideas and silencing dissent.

In short, they represent an attempt to generate the very antithesis of a "marketplace of ideas" - what one might call, for want of a better phrase, "a closed, homogenous consensus".

It is a mistake to think that the ANC has always been like this. These developments have their roots in President Mbeki's administration and are threatening to flourish under a Jacob Zuma Presidency. Compare the obvious intention behind those pieces of legislation outlined above and this quote from former President Nelson Mandela:

"Truth does indeed have immense power; yet it remains extremely elusive. No single person, no body of opinion, no political or religious doctrine, no political party or government can claim to have a monopoly on truth. For that reason truth can be arrived at only through the untrammelled contest between and among competing opinions, in which as many viewpoints as possible are given a fair and equal hearing. It has therefore always been our contention that laws, mores, practices and prejudices that place constraints on freedom of expression are a disservice to society. Indeed these are the devices employed by falsehood to lend it strength in its unequal contest with truth."

It is a statement Mill would have been proud of. Mandela was speaking in 1994, to the International Press Institute Congress, and the contrast between his sentiments then, and the ANC's various intentions in this regard today, are plain to see.

Those pieces of legislation listed above run contrary to a number of Constitutional principles, perhaps most significantly, freedom of expression and the separation of powers, and they all have a common theme: to centralise control in the hands of government; and by control one means the ability to censor what information is available to the public.

It is also a tendency typical of nationalist parties everywhere and throughout history, as it reflects their belief that they alone are able to identify and define ‘the truth' and that anyone not willing to subscribe to their ideals is not simply wrong, but morally corrupt - for to the oppose ‘the truth' is not just to oppose the ruling party, it is to put yourself on the wrong side of a perceived battle between right and wrong.

As Socrates said in one of Plato's dialogues: "The partisan engaged in debate cares nothing about what is right but only to persuade others to agree with him".

The practical steps necessary, then, are fairly self evident: legislation and actions - such as those outlined above - which act to restrict, confine or control public debate must be defeated, and all citizens must take individual responsibility for ensuring that this happens. But that on its own is not enough; in the face of a ruling party intent on reducing debate it is clear there is a need for legislation which acts not just to counter but to strengthen Constitutional principles such as freedom of speech and the separation between party and state.

This would have the joint consequence of not only ensuring that public debate is a safe haven - an arena where all ideas can compete for prominence and acceptance - but also help to create a culture in which reason and rational consideration are championed and promoted and there role in society elevated.

Conclusion

The French moralist and essayist Joseph Joubert said that "the aim of debate should not be victory, but progress" and that sentiment nicely encapsulates the motivation behind the notion of a "marketplace of ideas".

Indeed, from the Mill quote cited in the introduction to this piece, it becomes clear that progress - the development of human thought and knowledge - was the very intention behind his argument. And meaningful, open debate is essential to this; for it is how ideas are tested, their merits assessed and their potential improved upon. It is also how those ideas harmful to a society are dismantled and dismissed. Nothing is achieved through suppressing ideas.

Turning once again to the work of British moral philosopher Anthony Grayling, he has the following to say about debate:

"True debaters are not, therefore, partisan. They share a concern to arrive at a truth, or sound judgement, or the best result, or an increase of understanding. When they criticise and disagree, it is the opposing argument and not the opposing arguer they address, for they know the reverse technique is a cheap fallacy of logic. And wherever they find an opposing argument strong, they rejoice to have learned something thereby."

This article by Gareth van Onselen first appeared on the Democratic Alliance weblog, The Real ANC Today, August 23 2008