Speech by DA National Spokesperson, Lindiwe Mazibuko MP, to the Cape Town Press Club earlier, August 2 2011:
Is South African politics really only about black politics?
I would like to begin by responding directly to the question raised in the subject of my address - Is South African politics really only about black politics? The short answer must surely be "no", that is the one thing it is not. Or certainly it should not be if we are trying to achieve the aims of redress, reconciliation, delivery and diversity which South Africa so desperately needs to undo the legacy of discrimination, the fruits of which are still with us today.
We cannot begin to forge a shared future of freedom, equality and prosperity for all the people of this country, if our first assumption is that the so-called politics of one racial group are considered more relevant than those of another. The very words "reconciliation, diversity, redress" speak to the needs of all South Africa's people, not just some - even if some make up the vast majority of the population.
I was initially quite perplexed by the concept of "black politics" as articulated in the proposition. As far as I could tell there is no such thing, since black South Africans are by no means a homogenous group. Does "black politics" comprise only black politicians? The black electorate? The majority black-consumed media, and the contributions to political debate of only black intellectuals and opinion-makers? Where does black politics begin and end?
And if such a thing can be defined in a massively divided country like ours - where we should be seeking to increase understanding between our people, rather than further stratifying them - then surely our aim should not be to advance it or centre the politics of the whole country on it? Just as we should not seek to define or advance "white politics" or "Indian politics" or "coloured politics".
From the perspective of the Democratic Alliance, it is certainly true that our most recent election campaign did indeed focus on winning over more support from members of the black electorate, and indeed it achieved this. It also achieved something equally, if not more, important for us as an organisation which has ambitions towards national government. It achieved a significant brand shift for the DA, and realigned us out of the so-called "white political party" space. Our aim, however, was not and will never be to become a "black party".
I mentioned earlier that black voters in South Africa are not homogenous - this is obvious. What is less obvious is just how different the politics of people from seemingly similar backgrounds truly are.
Based on a combination of extensive polling and focus group data, we have been able to see in the wake of the local government election just how many differences exist between people of the same race group, gender, socio-economic level, and even geographic location in respect of whether they vote for or are predisposed to vote for the DA as opposed to the ANC.
We have learned that a black potential DA voter is no more likely to hail from an urban dwelling than a rural one. She is no more likely to have a higher level of education, be of a certain age, or speak a particular language. Her voting decisions are more likely to relate to her personal, emotional response to the past, the present, and crucially, the future.
So my answer must be "no". South African politics may be highly racialised, but by its very nature, this involves and is informed by each and every racial grouping in the country, and within each racial group, a plethora of different needs, views and responses to the past and the future.
When I straw-polled a number of colleagues about what they believed was the meaning of "black politics", many assumed it to be a reference to race politics. So for the purposes of this discussion, I will use both definitions of the term interchangeably.
The politics of South Africa today is increasingly about the struggle to overcome our past - in particular how to undo the emotional and the socio-economic damage wrought by policies of racial and gender discrimination under apartheid. In short, it is the struggle to attain freedom for all. Unfortunately, this means different things to different people and politicians:
To some, it necessarily requires the rise of a black ruling class which will ultimately be at the centre of every aspect of public life. In other words, some see black domination today as the appropriate response to the white domination of apartheid. Former president Nelson Mandela spoke eloquently and famously against both forms of domination in his iconic speech from the dock during the Rivonia Trial in April 1964.
To others, redressing the imbalances of the past is about striving towards equality and diversity; in particular, equality of access to opportunity, resources, power.
Indeed, with respect to party politics, as the electorate's voting choices have rendered the fringe ideologies of smaller opposition parties increasingly irrelevant, the debate between the two main parties - the Democratic Alliance and the African National Congress - has also become about the best way to achieve these goals. The way which will result in the most prosperity, the most access to opportunity and the most effective, sustainable redress in the shortest possible time. This is the way the DA has chosen.
The ANC might have once also taken this view, with differences only in ideological leaning, but in practice it has begun to take on the former mantle of racial nationalism, and the fight to entrench black domination as a solution to apartheid's ills. The recent local government election campaign is a case in point:
For the first eight or so weeks of the election period, while some political parties were pulling out all the stops and gearing up for the upcoming elections, questions abounded about the ANC's notable absence from the campaign. ANC posters and billboards were going up in a haphazard, uncoordinated fashion, there seemed to be endless infighting in the party with regard to the compilation of party lists, and it looked as though the party which governed the majority of South Africa's municipalities was in danger of never making it out of the starting blocks.
In the meantime, we in the DA were in the process of rolling out a comprehensive campaign based on our record in government, in places as diverse as the City of Cape Town, Baviaans (a rural municipality in the Eastern Cape), and Midvaal in Gauteng. We believed that this election was the most significant in our democratic dispensation since 1994 because of this one crucial aspect: for the first time, voters would have the opportunity to compare the governance records of two political parties, and make their electoral choice on the basis of the delivery outcomes each had produced.
And since analysts as diverse as the BEE ratings agency Empowerdex, the Department of Co-operative Governance & Traditional Affairs, and the provincial governments of Gauteng and the Eastern Cape have on many occasions rated DA-run municipalities as the best for service delivery, our campaign centred on the proposition that in choosing the DA, voters could now elect a political party that actually delivers a better life for all, rather than just talking about it.
Throughout the campaign we repeatedly invited the ANC, as the incumbent government in the majority of municipalities around the country, to engage with the DA and the South African electorate on service delivery issues. We challenged the party to tell voters what it had done to improve their lives over the past five years in office.
We compiled pages and pages of data about the DA's record in government; and we called on the ANC to release the names of its metro mayoral candidates in the name of transparency, so that they may debate the DA's mayoral candidates and give the voters a fair opportunity to compare the pledges and manifestos of the two main political parties contesting this election.
On May Day 2011, out of nowhere it seemed, the sleeping giant awoke. But instead of getting stuck into the substantive issues raised during the course of the election campaign, the ANC chose immediately to go on the racial offensive, using almost every platform it was afforded to launch a racial attack on the DA. The Sunday Times famously, and ironically, called it the "ANC's Fight Back Campaign".
It began with Higher Education Minister, Blade Nzimande's detailed and vitriolic attack on Helen Zille, Patricia de Lille and me - whom he called "a madam and two stooges" on account of our picture on the DA election posters, and presumably because, in Minister Nzimande's own warped mind, a white woman, a coloured woman, and a black woman cannot possibly relate to one another as equals. The white woman must necessarily be their master, and the two black women, her servants.
Minister Nzimande was never repudiated, and he was not alone. A high-profile selection of the ANC's election offerings includes Buti Manamela, who, in a bitter diatribe published in the online media, referred to black South Africans who supported the DA as "monkeys, doing the bidding of their master". Julius Malema, of course - thinking along the same lines as Nzimande - labelled me "the madam's tea girl", proving simultaneously that both misogyny and racism now have a comfortable home in the ANC.
And perhaps the most disturbing of all, Nceba Faku, the Chairman of the ANC in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro - which the party managed to hold onto only by the skin of its teeth - called not only for the burning down of the Eastern Cape Herald's headquarters, but also declared that black South Africans who voted for the DA should go to Europe or be driven into the sea. And thus, the circle of hatred was complete.
Some people in South Africa really do want to make this country's politics about "black politics" only. Not all are in the ANC, and not all of those in the ANC want this. But since the party has failed categorically to repudiate the words of those who peddle the politics of racial division in its name, we can only surmise that it hopes to capitalise on division for electoral success, while at the same time preaching non-racialism and claiming a commitment to the values of a glorious past.
The path of divisive, racial politics is an easy one, fuelled by populist rhetoric and conspiracy theories, straw men and distorted facts. It also appeals to the most wounded parts of the South African people's psyche - the anger, shame, denial, and deficit of self-esteem which apartheid has bequeathed to us. It is the path of easy villains, lack of empathy and understanding, and the peddling of fear and loathing and resentment. This is also why it is profoundly bad for South Africa and bad for democracy.
We have a tendency to forget that hatred is a moving target; one that can never be permanently vanquished. Perhaps the political leaps and bounds of 1994 led us to believe that the journey to reconciliation was like a river that we would cross over, and emerge on the other side, victorious, having slain the demons which followed us into South Africa's new dispensation. But if events like the recent massacre in Norway have taught us anything, it is that the battle to extinguish hatred based on ignorance is never over.
It requires constant vigilance, and regular examinations of our history - not in order to fashion it into a weapon, but to gain a better understanding of how it is that we are here today. It also requires that rational, thinking people who believe in our democratic dispensation and in the constitutional values upon which it is founded, stand up to those who seek to take us down the road of domination by one race group over all others.
By comparison, what we in the DA are pursuing is a radical and far more challenging alternative: the proposition that, in addition to seeking to redress the imbalances of our past, we may also seek better to understand, defend and protect one another's rights and freedoms.
On Freedom Day 2011 Helen Zille delivered a speech at Solomon Mahlangu Square in Mamelodi, in which she reflected upon the emotional and economic scars left by apartheid. She said, and I quote:
"Let us be honest and give name to the feelings that oppress us still. There is anger and resentment, natural human responses to humiliation. There is a deficit of confidence and self-esteem. There is embarrassment and guilt. And there is that most pernicious of responses to our past, the anti-feeling that is denial. In all of us, there is a yearning to be seen and heard; to be understood.
We cannot engage these feelings nor reconstruct our relationship with ourselves and each other, by means of confrontation. And we cannot overcome the feelings that oppress us in court rooms. Nelson Mandela showed us the way forward. Reconciliation takes courage and generosity. And it takes time."
Likewise, Dr Mamphela Ramphele, in her book Laying Ghosts to Rest - whose entire premise is that the ghosts of our oppressive and repressive past must be named out loud before they can be laid to rest - takes a similar view.
Unless responsible leaders are willing to work daily to facilitate such discussions, based on the truth, and on understanding, the populists and their cynical, short-term political ends will gain ground, our society will be driven deeper into re-racialism, and our chances of reaching mutual understanding so that we can commit to protecting and defending each other's rights will be irrevocably extinguished.
Issued by the Democratic Alliance, August 2 2011
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
