In his seminal work In Defense of Politics (1962), British political theorist Bernard Crick described politics as a branch of ethics done in public in which experience plays a central role and involves the actions of citizens freely debating public policy, where different interests are contested peacefully. He asserted that citizens in this milieu need to be active, willing and able to play a part in the democratic process to bolster and safeguard democratic principles.
In 1994 SA embarked on this road, and after almost 30 years of successive ANC governments it has failed to develop and engage an active citizenry to deliver on a broad mandate aimed at growing prosperity, reducing inequality and providing equal opportunities to all the people of SA.
Instead, its policies and actions have created an elite — largely black — which lags in key transformative aspects even compared with the political actions of former white governments, albeit that they were forced by circumstance and the pressure of citizens. The ANC has failed to alter the political landscape in a way that might have averted a descent into the most unequal country in the world, abetted by an incapable state characterised by failed policies, malfeasance, ineptitude and wholesale corruption.
Within this sorry set of circumstances the DA has grown into the largest opposition party, implacably opposed to this downward dive and set to garner anything between 20% and 25% of the national vote. Despite it being the most racially diverse party among the host of political parties — at all levels and spheres of government — it is plagued by accusations of racism and unsubstantiated accusations of “white control”.
Periodic resignations from the DA — no different from individual and group breakaways from the ANC and other parties — are always disingenuously characterised by the media and analysts as having issues of racialism at the centre of their disaffection. Policy and ideological incompatibility apart, there is never any granular dissection of their frustration at a personal level that unravels the multifaceted reasons for their departure.
The real reasons often involve disciplinary hearings within the party for alleged ethical and other transgressions, evincing discontent at having been unable to sway structures and members to their desired political amendments of policy, an inability to champion successfully factional and personal aspirations, or simple defeat of their slates in internally contested structures. It’s the stuff of politics at a low level.
Yet racism is always posited as the ostensible reason, notwithstanding the patent diversity of internal voting structures within the DA and the reality that the views of the disaffected on redress and race, black economic empowerment, cadre deployment and preferential procurement are essentially a light version of ANC policies that have propelled the country into the parlous place it occupies — racial remedies to end racism that are really a smokescreen for elite formation.
Little credence is given to the fact that the DA is essentially a liberal party whose policies embrace responsible historical redress, the fostering of equality of opportunity and the firing of a growth-driven engine to combat eye-watering levels of unemployment, aimed at delivering prosperity in a manner that understands the skewed demographics of the country — and that does so in nonracial manner.
As early as 1978 a key antecedent and one of the forerunners of the DA, the PFP, explained that political rights must be shared by all South African citizens, and those systems that “could lead to racial domination are rejected”. It clearly stated that statutory or administrative discrimination on the grounds of race was unacceptable. In particular, PFP leader Frederik Van Zyl Slabbert described how the party was “fundamentally opposed” to legal measures that prevented different race groups from voluntarily associating. The party saw the need for a break with the ideologies of the past, and much of this thinking still underpins the DA today.
Building on this legacy and in commentary about the ANC’s views, in 2011 Helen Zille, then leader of the DA, said in an interview: “My perception of nonracialism is approaching each person as a unique individual and not merely as some kind of representative of the category. So, race is one identity marker, and obviously given our history it is an important identity marker, but it is not the only identity marker.
“To make race subsume everything else and to believe that racial categories are the only ones that can define a person’s aspirations, views, positions, political philosophy, is fundamentally false... the common experience of a racial reality is certainly one identity, but it cannot be seen as the defining identity imposed on other people... in a free society people don’t have an identity imposed upon them by virtue of racial category prescribed by others”.
By comparison, in a speech delivered by erstwhile DA leader Mmusi Maimane (with whom many of the views of the disaffected chime) at the 2019 Black Business Summit in Midrand, argued that we should be looking at ways to better include more ordinary black South Africans in our economy.
Not unlike the ANC’s approach, this was racially focused, except in one key area where, in terms of share ownership, he called for a far stronger emphasis on workers as shareholders and argued that this needs to be placed front and centre of the DA’s empowerment model.
Maimane also identified enterprise development as an aspect of empowerment that required a rethink and proposed the establishment of a fund specifically aimed at financing new black entrants — whether they be in mining, insurance, clothing or any other industry. He called this a “jobs & justice fund”, which would involve ring-fenced start-up capital meant to launch new black businesses.
The question is, how different is this from the ANC’s model, which ostensibly aims in the long term to deracialise the economy by implementing racial measures? How different is this from government’s Black Industrialists Programme? Maimane argued that companies should be rewarded for their efforts to help develop new black entrepreneurs.
He also focused on a new empowerment model — skills development. At face value this is a sound idea, but it too doesn’t merit racialisation. The economy grows when individuals and businesses succeed in recognising new markets and new opportunities and cautiously embrace the risks involved in pursuing these opportunities in the hope of augmenting income. When this happens individuals invest in their own abilities through education and training, and in doing so increase their value to the market.
So yes, incentivise the broadening of skills, and fire up the growth of the economy to propel this, and the black majority will in any event reap the benefit. Maimane went on to argue that we need to ensure our places of work — across all sectors and at all levels — become reflective of the diversity of our nation, and our efforts for the time being need to be targeted at black South Africans specifically, to address the injustices that were aimed specifically at them. And so, according to Maimane, while we all agree that our goal is a nonracial country with equal opportunities for all, there will come a time when we no longer use race as a proxy for disadvantage. But not yet.
Like President Cyril Ramaphosa Maimane aimed, via these measures, “to deracialise our economy”. But I’m not sure racially targeted “interim measures” are the way to go. What is clear is that we need to grow the economy so everyone benefits. It’s all about creating more wealth and growing the pie for all South Africans — over 80% of whom are black.
I have focused at length on Maimane’s championing of race as a proxy for disadvantage because his departure from the DA in a fit of pique set in motion a chain of events and periodically planned departures from the DA by those who agree with him, and by many who seek to cover their subsequent tribulations in the party for a host of reasons with the mantle of manufactured racial disputes. Maimane often addressed the selectively invited “black caucus” in the DA, where many of these views had currency and where many of the disaffected were vocal.
The reality, however, is that Maimane’s ANC-lite policies were at odds with the DA’s principles, which ultimately led his departure, compounded by his electoral failure notwithstanding, him vainly pandering to a voter segment he thought would add to the DA’s fortunes at the polls. This failed largely because many in this segment still buy into the racial fiction peddled by the ANC, despite their patent exasperation at their alienation by the same organisation.
Now Maimane's fellow travellers — Makashule Gana, among others — who bided their time in the DA waiting for opportune moments — are poised to coalesce under new formations involving the stewardship of Maimane and his movement, Herman Mashaba and his fractured vehicle, and Songezo Zibi whose new book, Manifesto, promises a new alignment of politics. No doubt others will emerge in the run-up to 2024.
As Peter Bruce wrote in the Sunday Times recently, “that’s all well and good, but to do politics you have to organise and win votes. Ask Helen Zille. It’s hard, hard graft. And it’s time to get off the pot.” ("To do new politics in SA is all good, but it’s hard graft”, August 7). I might add that principles matter, and those who chose to leave would do well to be honest about how close their avowed ideologies are to the ANC, which delivered us this unholy mess. Their presence in the DA is a case of square pegs in round holes.
What they really want is an ANC cleansed of corruption, and as such might want to join Ramaphosa in the pipe-dreams of his new dawn — if he’ll have them. The DA stance that irks them so vehemently is firmly based on nonracialism, and as Zille says “South Africans have a choice between an open, opportunity for all society and a closed, crony society for some”.
Best they exercise this option and banish this damaging racial discourse from politics. As Crick said, by all means debate public policy and contest different interests, but let’s have none of this guileful, mendacious and frankly shifty waving of the racecard at every turn, and the amplification thereof by every commentator who thinks they understand politics but is actually complicit in a shameful game.
This is not about Donald Trump, Victor Orban or Narendra Modi; this is about a fiercely liberal, fundamentally democratic and avowedly nonracial party contesting politics in a principled way. As Harry S Truman said, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
• Cachalia, an MP, is DA public enterprises spokesperson.
