The DA’s commitment to liberal values has recently been contested and placed under the microscope. Self-appointed custodians of liberalism pretend to have a monopoly over the ideology and have advanced a rigid, inflexible interpretation of it. On the other end of the spectrum Latté Leftists have levelled criticism against the DA’s perceived direction. All of it I believe is unfounded.

In the first instance because the very idea of a rigid, inflexible liberalism is anathematic to the very basic principles of the ideology, and at the very least arrogant. A dogmatic approach to liberalism is also illiberal.

The death of Marxist-Leninism more than three decades ago was exactly because the ideology became irrelevant to and failed to adapt to a changing socio-economic and geopolitical landscape.

An ideology, as defined by Andrew Heywood (2005: 12), an author whose work I will be referring throughout, is:

“a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organised political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power. All ideologies therefore: (a) offer an account of the existing order, usually in the form of a ‘world view’; (b) advance a model of a desired future, a vision of the ‘good society’’; and (c) explain how political change can and should be brought about – how to get from (a) to (b).”

From this definition it is evident that without a continued assessment and reevaluation of both (a) and (c) any ideology will be consigned to the dustbin of political irrelevance. Which is why some individuals who have left the DA are so bitter and twisted, because they have become out of sync with the party’s future and irrelevant to it.

Moreover, liberalism as a centuries’ old ideology has evolved and given birth to a diversity of strands beyond just the main classical versus modern liberalism divide. These include liberal feminism, social liberalism, liberal nationalism (in the Wilsonian sense), liberal internationalism, and the liberal right or neoliberalism.

I definitely do not relate to or agree with all of these, I am indubitably a modern social liberal and liberal feminist, but that is the beauty of an ideology as committed to pluralism and diversity as liberalism.

There is nothing contrary to liberalism in the DA’s Values Charter or our commitment to Freedom, Fairness and Opportunity, and all that this entails: a nurturing family environment; a commitment to hard work; measures to redress the persistent legacy of a racist and oppressive political system; personal self-development and advancement; and the building of a safe, caring and working society and government that delivers.

It is in particular in sync with my own interpretation of modern liberalism.

Liberalism, as a ‘meta-ideology’, is firmly committed to constitutional and liberal democracy based on formal political equality, competition and electoral choice, and a clear distinction between the state and civil society maintained through a range of constitutional, institutional and social checks and balances.

This is rooted in the fundamental principles of liberalism:

the primacy of the individual, the uniqueness of each individual enjoying equality with every other individual;

an unwavering commitment to freedom;

An emphasis on reason and science being key to social, political and economic progress and advancement and underpinning the progressive and evolving nature of the ideology;

The pursuit of justice; and

The value of toleration and diversity.

Different liberal thinkers and strands of liberalism interpret these core values and principles differently, and consider some more important or prominently than others.

It is in this way that the two overarching liberal strands depart. I am not a classical liberalism, while I agree with its emphasis on economic liberalism in the most basic sense and natural rights theory; I do not prescribe to or agree with the influence of and ideas of Social Darwinism, Utilitarianism and Neoliberalism.

My liberalism – broadly described and contained in modern liberalism and its ideas – values individuality and developmental individualism over the classical liberal atomistic, egotistical and possessive individualism.

My liberalism emphasises positive freedoms: the ability of individuals to access opportunities to develop and attain individuality and the life they choose and value. This involves the ability of the individual to realise his or her full potential, attain skills and knowledge and achieve fulfilment: the so-called ‘good life’.

This is further underscored by the pursuit of social liberalism and social justice or understanding justice as fairness, and not simply rights-based or retributive justice. This requires a state and government that plays a positive role through social welfare and facilitating access to opportunity – not simply a classical liberal minimalist role as mere arbiter in social disputes or contravention of the law. This also illustrates the modern liberal idea of social responsibility

My liberalism also advocates a minimal form of economic management: a free market economy in which the state plays a checked and minimal regulatory and oversight role to guard against, prevent and punish exploitation, monopolistic ventures, progressive taxation, and stimulates investment.

My liberalism also values diversity, tolerance and pluralism. Personal autonomy and development is best served by exposure to a diversity of ideas, cultures, experiences and views. It also appreciates and values the fact that our society is composed of a variety of communities and societies that individuals freely associate with and contribute to their personal development and individuality in a variety of ways. This includes linguistic, religious, cultural, families,

This underscores the modern liberal and DA commitment to protect and promote the rights of individuals to belong to linguistic, cultural and religious groups that they create through free association. Modern liberalism embraces, protects and promotes all four generation of rights: political rights, individual liberties, group rights and environmental rights.

The group does not replace the primacy of the individual or individuality: they relate in a variety of ways to contribute to who we are as individuals and members of society. It is for this reason that I agree with our DA Federal Leader Mmusi Maimane who has claimed that Ubuntu is not at odds with liberalism. Indeed, “umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu”, I am because you are, and we grow together and because of one another.

Of course this is my liberalism – different people and different members and representatives of my DA subscribe to different views on the economy, for example. This is healthy, this is liberal, and this is necessary to develop liberalism and navigate an ever-changing society.

Dogmatism is illiberal, and so is any attempt to clamp down on dissent, disagreement and debate in the DA and society-at-large.

References:

Heywood, A. 2005. Political Ideologies: An Introduction (3rd Edition). Palgrave Macmillan: New York.