Nkosana Sibuyi

Posted by Nkosana Sibuyi: 07 August 2011

Introductory Remarks

The posting of this contribution, although written on 19 June 2002, was occasioned by the current discourse on the Promotion of Information Bill and the envisaged establishment of the Media Appeals Tribunal. This epistle is a product of both objective and subjective observation (and solitary analysis) that one has made in the life of South Africa’s democratic transition. The mistake that humankind unashamedly or perhaps unwittingly commit confirms Antonio Gramci’s warning on the danger of hegemony and the creation of monolithic and homogenous society. This piece is written for self-clarification on SA’s quest to return to normalcy, which may be perceived by some as a necessary inconvenience yet a cathartic experience for any country undergoing social transformation. It is in this realm that one has decided to gravitate from the general to the particular, without particularizing the intrinsic and extrinsic pitfalls and anomie inherent in the diversity of humanity’s quest to be absolved by history.

NOMALCY: IS IT A NECCESARY INCOVENIENCE?

History, one has come to accept, has an inclination to be punitive to some individuals who have contributed to humanity’s servitude. However, historiography and the process of rewriting the history of our forebears is largely shaped by the historian or the archivist‘s consciousness and worldview. To a remarkable degree, they chronicle events, humanity’s contribution and select those records they deem eponymous and of great literary quality. This is one of the freedoms that any Historian enjoys and would jealously guard against its erosion.

Accordingly, history as one of the weapons struggling for the triumph of the human memory ought not only to be treated as a sui generis phenomenon, but as a discipline appreciative of the tapestry of our diversity as human beings. Historians, however, are part of the society and are therefore, prone to hoodwink society to believe that their thoughtful reflection the social reality and circumstances of the country is veracious.

This, by its very nature, is a precarious task but a paradoxical necessity and possibility that may give rise to the birth of credentialism and tendentious commentary. Intermittently, history teaches humankind to maintain maximum vigilance in unraveling the complex and contradictory phenomena of faddism and orthodoxy as well as the inherent danger of vilifying those who hold divergent worldviews, contestations and viewpoints. MPLA and ZANU-PF in both Angola and Zimbabwe bears a living testimony, which if not discouraged, may undermine the credibility and the success of NEPAD including the efficacy of the African Peer Review Mechanism inscribed in the Constitutive Act of the African Union.

On the other hand, some social and political commentators are credulously made to think that democratic decision-making is an intrinsically just way of making decisions about the structure of society. This idea, along with some noble ideas and observations about society commits us to believe in the centrality of democratic principles, values and hallmarks associated with the progressive nature and character of human history. These include, but not limited to, glasnot or openness, transparency, consultation, equality, freedom of speech, thought and opinion.

Noble as these principles and values are, it would seem that in other circles their inviolability is an anathema. There may of course be good and cerebral reasons of doubting their inviolability-perhaps because the understanding and belief of their intrinsic and extrinsic meanings are appreciably diverse. The assessment expressed by Tomoji Shagenji, in his journal article “The Role of Coherence in Epistemic Justification” is telling. The kernel of this argument is that a belief/conviction is justified by another belief/conviction only if the justifying belief is itself justified, and thus if any beliefs are to be justified at all without infinite regress or circularity, there must be basic beliefs that are justified independently of any other beliefs.

In a South African context, recently and to a certain extent unfortunately, there has been a growing sentiment that is at best intolerant of heterogenous viewpoints. These opinions are deemed reactionary, counter-revolutionary and ultra-leftist. This view, it would appear, is oblivious of the fact that the dawn of the democratic epoch in SA has created a new texture of intellectual diversity and heteregenous thought. This environment presents new challenges, contradictions and demand of any patriot to make a deliberate choice to correctly analyse and manage the new context in a quest to return to normalcy and affirm the struggle for maturity.

Mzantsi Africa never ceases to amaze. Seldom, the demeanor and the conduct of some people are theatrical, yet they have a profound bearing and implications on the future of Afrika Borwa’s nascent and fragile democracy. At the height of the struggle for national emancipation, it was fashionable, and widely accepted to exorcise, malign and vilify any viewpoint or opinion that was perceived to be a threat to the struggle for emancipation. Freedom of thought and an appreciation of the plurality of human thinking are some of the cardinal elements in the consolidation of democracy. Appreciably, this is by and large shaped by reading, writing, thinking, and utilization of strategy and tactics in a given moment.

The acme of revolutionary or intellectual theory is inextricably linked to the appreciation of dynamic forces inherent in an evolving society. From this standpoint, it is advisable to provide dialectical reasons for current worldviews, thus mastering the art and science of political communication without being caught-up in the euphoria of the moment. Essentially, this will not create a possibility for humankind to be lulled into a culture of prurience.

The President of the ANCYL, Malusi Gigaba recently said that the two senior positions in the ANC (President and the Deputy President) should not be contested because they “are sancrosanct.” This is rather unfortunate, dangerous and preposterous to say the least.

A simple question arises from this objective reality: Does this suggest that the ANC Constitution would be amended to protect the sacredness or inviolability of the two senior positions? In what way will the amendment be beneficial or defeatist to the current and future generation?

Without any compunction, one would have expected a principled statement from the ANC senior leadership distancing itself from such statements by Gigaba. Put differently, would one be wrong to opine that Gigaba was just a conduit of the general and common attitude of the incumbents of the affected positions? Putting it bluntly, is Gigaba perhaps trying to deeply ingratiate himself to the current leadership in the movement by telling them exactly “what they prefer to hear”?

The difficulty, however in posing questions, if not coined correctly, is that it may give birth to a wrong answer. Regardless of the type of an answer that may be proffered, the fundamental reality, questions posed tend to carry with them answers that are based on perceptions and experiences.

Nnedima Okorafor, warns that “laws are meant to inspire and regulate the goodness of a community.” Viewed from this perspective, it can rightly or wrongly be argued that the call is a reflection of humanity’s folly, a byword for cunning, duplicity, dishonesty and the exercise of bad faith in political affairs. It may be argued that, the expressions of such views, in the long term, have the potential and possibility to constitute the most dangerous threat for a nascent and the fragility of a democratic society such as South Africa.

It appears that we are trapped in the quagmire of deliberately failing to draw a line of distinction between a person’s personal opinion and views that an individual expresses because of an office he/she occupies. Does the failure of senior ANC leadership to reign in Gigaba’s suggest that he was saying something that the NEC had already decided? If not, what informs this loud silence?

It is patently clear that the arrogance of power tends to affect political judgment. What is not demonstrably clear at this stage is whether Gigaba was (A) expressing a policy position taken by the ANCYL NEC or ( is an expression of a personal opinion on the matter (or a paradoxical combination of both). If A is correct and true, it will be incumbent upon historians not to be condemned to silence, even at a time when the country is nursing its fragility. It will therefore not be asking too much to question the integrity and intellectual independence of the noble young men and women in the ANCYL NEC who have been entrusted with an immense responsibility to guide SA’s road to maturity. SA’s return to normalcy cannot be dismissed as a necessary inconvenience. It is a sine qua non for the triumph of humanity’s memory. Accordingly, if B is correct, although, some felt a sense of shock and inner anguish for the beloved country, one is profoundly humbled that although he may be perceived by some to have passed “Through the Eyes of a Needle?” history will chronicle his lifetime objectively without fear or favour.

Each generation is entrusted with a responsibility to change the world or remake history. By the same token and whatever the weaknesses are, cannot afford to be perilously lost in the convulsions of time thereby allowing South Africa to be willy-nilly subsumed into the nihilism of the epoch. Conversely, it is not our appreciation of the noble ideas that will guarantee spaciousness in the annals of human history, but the extent to which the right of others to express their diverse views without favour are upheld. Indeed, the perceived intolerance to heterogeneous views has potential to affect the nation’s political calculus.

Nicollo Machiavelli, writing within the Florentine context in Italy, argued that if the prince wishes to reach the highest goals, he will not always find it rational to be moral and objective, on the contrary, he will find that any consistent attempt to practice all those things for which men are considered good will prove a ruinously irrational policy. Machiavelli further made a startling observation that there are people who act with caution, others impetuously, some by force and the other with skill. Perhaps he should have added maturity or political calculus.

Without suggesting that Gigaba did not make made a calculated, cerebral or matured pronouncement on the issue at hand, it becomes clear that the (in)correctness or in(appropriateness) of that statement when the movement is perceived to be breaking its own rules needs to be critically examined in a magnifying glass by the young intelligentsia. This presents a challenge to the Aristotles, Galileos and Gramscis of today to expunge from the political jargon any attempt to enslave the young intelligentsia in the albatross of monolithicism and homogeneity. In a sense, and trenchantly South Africa must be transformed into a market place of ideas where diverse contestations, worldviews, and perspectives contest.

In the course of the ongoing struggle to return to normalcy and of arriving at that denouement in the search for the truth everywhere, we should be wary of becoming prisoners of kafleaesque nightmare, but guided by the conviction that any contribution must build a solid society. In the same vein, it would be wrong to conclude that any vantage point, which is contrary to the centre, is an expression of the betrayal of the national democratic revolution, in as much as it would be incorrect to claim that those who are supportive of the centre are lapdogs, lackeys or pychophants.

It is unfortunate that the ANC is not political party with an ideology but a multi-class organization that was in the past called a broad church. In this connection, what happens in a broad church is that the line of march depends on who is standing behind the pulpit and any deviation from that is not tolerated. Undoubtedly, in a multi class organization the dominant class will always dictate terms.

Another observation arises in the form of a question: Will the ANCYL afford to live with the consequences of subtle dictatorship that seems to be sprouting? Possibilities are that the masses of the ANCYL will react against it as they did with all the undemocratic systems of government that preceded this one. The popular will of the masses, irrespective of the price that they might have to pay, will surely prevail. It might not be now, but a day will certainly come.

Another necessary debate which has become an irritation to some, but dominated the public discourse is the growing sentiments expressed on whether progressive South Africans should boycott the Mail and Guardian (alias the Mail and Garbage as some prefer to call it) by simply ceasing to buy it. There seems to be an (in)principled consensus that the Mail and Guardian represent a force that is guided by the unwavering commitment slanted towards an oppositional agenda by incessantly concentrating on the wrongs, negativities and anomies inherent in our society and deliberately close its eyes on the strides registered in this country.

From a legal point of view freedom of expression means the right to express ideas and have others receiving same without any fear or prejudice. South Africa’s constitutional jurisprudence suggests that the right to freedom of expression is one of the important rights for building of a democratic society based on dignity, equality and freedom.

But will boycotting the M&G serve as a deux ex machina that will exorcise this reactionary monster? Or on the contrary, will boycotting it not undermine the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which encourages freedom of expression and plurality of thoughts? To what extent can the M&G be transformed (but by whom?) to desist from what is perceived to be cavalier journalism to unconditionally embrace critical debate combines with the passion to keep us on our toes with a greatest sense of agility? Are these not the necessary contradictions we need so that we can move forward without complacency?

Most South Africans are agreed that a diverse media is needed in SA. The Media Diversity and Development Agency (MDDA) initiative by the government is aimed at addressing this challenge. However, the call for the boycott seems to be directly working against the precepts of the MDDA. If these pronouncements are made spontaneously, what then would the purpose of the MDDA be? Would it only fund media that seems to be supportive of the government’s agenda?

The Italian Intellectual, Antonio Gramci has warned us that “freedom of choice imposes certain duties upon us, absolute duties which concern the life of the people and are inherent in the future of the masses who suffer and hope. Today, there exists only one form of revolutionary solidarity: to win. It therefore demands of us that we should not neglect any single element that might put us in a condition to win”

Conclusively, we need to heed to that French Scholar, Albert Camus, when he says, “there is no life without dialogue and persuasion. And men can only live on the basis of the idea that they have something in common on which they can always get together” It is out of our different opinions that we are able to forge a common consensus and work towards a common objective. South Africa cannot afford a situation where Ideas of an individual are cast on a stone and no divergent views are expected. As long as this planet earth is habitated by animals called human beings it will be wrong to expect homogeneity of ideas and approaches to a particular intended end result. The challenge should be, how to harmonise these contradictions to the common good of our society.

To paraphrase from Camus, the young intelligentsia is being told: Look at the anguish and agony humanity is in. What are you doing about it? To the indifferent young people, the reply would be “ I am not adding anything to it.” How sad that would be. As per dictates of time, we shall need to make our contributions towards the development and consolidation of a plural knowledge society. The knowledge society is created and sustained by people continuously engaged in the defining task of questioning, reading, writing, searching for the truth, willingness to share paradigms and curiosity to challenge ignorance. We must keep the faith!