Silences are sometimes more telling than speeches. One of Sherlock Holmes' most famous cases concerned the dog that didn't bark at night. Holmes realises that this very silence is a telling clue, pointing to the guilt of the dog's owner. There was such a silence in South Africa last week when the Constitutional Court ruled in the Renate Barnard case in favour of racially discriminatory practices aimed at whites. Ms Barnard had repeatedly come top of her police assessments but been denied promotion because of the colour of her skin.
It was a quite extraordinary ruling not only because it was so obviously unfair to Ms Barnard and so clearly destructive of police morale and competence but because in effect it left troubling questions as to whether whites (and potentially other groups) were really equal under the law. In addition, of course, it comes at a time when courts all over America have been moving clearly and strongly in the opposite direction, ruling that affirmative action programmes which conflict with individual rights are nor sustainable.
Thus in June 2006 the US Supreme court ruled in Parents v Seattle and Meredith vs Jefferson that it was unconstitutional to consider race when assigning students to schools. In November 2008 the state of Nebraska voted to abolish all forms of affirmative action based in race or gender. In June 2009 in Ricci vs De Stefano in Connecticut there was an exact analogue of the Barnard case in South Africa when 18 firefighters took New Haven Fire Service to court because they had thrown out the results of exams for captain and lieutenant because it would have meant the promotion of "too many" whites and Hispanics. The court ruled that this was illegal, that the exam results must be reinstated and that promotions must be on merit. Most recently, in April 2014 in Schutte vs. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action the court decided in favour of Michigan state's decision not to consider race in college admissions.
What this makes clear is that our Constitutional Court, as presently constituted, is a very odd body indeed, ruling that what is fair in America is unfair here. It is a completely parochial body, quite happy to be the only court in the world ruling openly in favour of racial discrimination out of a dubious belief in South African exceptionalism. No doubt the Court would, if it felt like it, rule that the law of gravity should not apply in South Africa. Given the history of South Africa, the long and bitter struggle against racial discrimination, and Mandela's that "never and never again" would such practices be allowed to besmirch this country, the Court's decision means a studied refusal to learn from the past, indeed it means a return to that past. By this decision the Court has lost much of its claim to public respect.
The silence that is so telling and so disgraceful is that of the official Opposition. Throughout its history from 1959 on the Progressive Party and its various incarnations since then would all have protested bitterly against such a decision and led a campaign to reverse it. Yet today's DA has nothing at all to say. This is the direct result of its abandonment of liberal principles, of Helen Zille's suggestion that the time-honoured Prog slogan of "Merit, not Colour" was itself racist.
The DA's failure to stand up for the principles of fairness, merit, equality under the law and against racial discrimination show all too graphically how completely the party has lost its moorings. Moreover, in the past, one suspects, such events would have led to vigorous and open debate within the party, resolutions moved at provincial conferences and the like. The party did not use to be so sheep-like. This unhappy silence suggests that something has gone badly wrong within the party.
The interesting thing about the DA's abandonment of liberal principle is that was not undertaken because the party has been converted to an alternative vision or strategy. Indeed, there is now no visible vision, strategy or set of principles at all. These disastrous changes appear to have been taken partly out of electoral opportunism and as a result of a cumulative series of decisions based on "feel good" and comfort zone factors. Yet all the opinion poll evidence is that a large majority of all South Africans believe that jobs should be awarded on merit and that they want key services like the police and the fire service to be run as efficiently as possible.
Thus the DA never voted either in caucus or in conference that it wished to ditch liberal principles. Instead the party leadership nudged and shuffled its way to a principle-free zone and the rest of the party simply ambled along behind like so many sheep. Only now is it becoming fully visible to DA members and voters just how much has been lost in this process. There are, as a result, more and more unhappy sheep to be seen, wondering where they are going, distrustful of their leaders, plaintively baa-ing.
Looking back one can see that the real watershed was the DA leadership's two attempts to hand the party over to Mamphela Ramphele essentially because of the colour of her skin and despite the fact that Ramphele clearly didn't like liberals or the DA and despite her own disastrous previous record. The apparent willingness of the party caucus to go along with this utterly mad gamble spoke volumes: it was simply too willing to be led by the nose. No one was even willing to stand up against handing the party over to a Black Consciousness militant with no record whatsoever of democratic political engagement.
The reason given for this bizarre decision was that it was essential to prove, once and for all, that the ANC's accusation that the DA was just a white party was wrong. Yet the very citing of such a reason showed how clearly the leadership's own thinking had effectively been colonised by the ANC. After all, everyone in the DA already knew that this allegation was ridiculous and that the ANC would continue making that allegation no matter who was the DA leader, so why on earth be bothered by such foolish name-calling ? Why make it the rationale for throwing the party away?
And now it is clear that that is exactly what it would have meant. Ms Ramphele is now shunned even by the remnants of Agang: her lack of democratic instincts meant that she never consulted them or saw herself as accountable to them - or to anybody. She is also being sued for large amounts of money because of the trail of unpaid bills she left behind (see City Press report). What is so serious here is that once the Agang-DA merger fell through, Agang's funding dried up. So to continue, as Ms Ramphele did, to order goods and services when she had no means to pay for them was highly reckless, a point being made with some fury by the suppliers she bankrupted.
At one point Ms Ramphele seems to have accepted her responsibility in this matter and agreed to sell some of her (quite extensive) assets in order to help pay the bills. Then, however, she had second thoughts, decided to "conserve my assets" and simply denied responsibility. So while Ms Ramphele was happy enough to give speeches demanding that the government be more accountable, she clearly doesn't feel that accountability applies to her.
Imagine if one or other of Ms Zille's attempts to make Ms Ramphele the next DA leader had succeeded. The carnage would have been terrible to behold. Ms Ramphele's imperiousness and lack of accountability would have bred huge resentment. In the end her dislike of liberals and refusal to submit herself to any democratic process would have produced a major party revolt.
The result would have been dreadful divisions within the party, probably on racial lines, as the first black woman leader was forcibly ejected amidst enormous ANC derision and name-calling. In the end it would have "proved" the opposite of what the DA leadership had wanted to prove. The party's forward momentum would have been halted, perhaps for good, and the party might well have split into several fragments.
DA supporters now experience a certain schadenfreude as they watch Ms Ramphele's travails but they shouldn't. The fact is that the worse Ms Ramphele looks, the worse the DA leadership looks for having tried so hard to do something which would have been so ruinous for the party. In any case, these forceful flirtations with Ms Ramphele were a key part of the party's lurch away from liberal principle - and, as the events of the last week show so dramatically, this damage remains.
RW Johnson
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
