ANC Today 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Volume 5, No. 6, 11- 17 February 2005
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
THIS WEEK:

* Letter from the President: Best wishes to our parliamentarians 
* Unity and diversity: The ANC's experience of diversity, cohesion and united
action 
* The Sociology of the Public Discourse in Democratic South Africa / Part V: A
figment of the imagination 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Best wishes to our parliamentarians 

This edition of ANC TODAY is published on the day of the holding of the Second
Joint Sitting of the Third Democratic Parliament, which marks the formal opening
of the 2005 session of our parliament. But this day is also the 15th anniversary
of the release from prison of Nelson Mandela, on 11 February 1990.

That release and the fact that we now have a parliament elected by all our
people, are obviously interlinked. The sacrifices made by Nelson Mandela and
others, including those who laid down their lives, to secure our liberation,
gave birth to our democracy and its institutions.

It is therefore inevitable that we should constantly ask ourselves the question
whether the democratic institutions they fought for are doing what they should,
to help us achieve the objectives for which millions engaged in a protracted
struggle.

Speaking at a rally in Cape Town on the day of his release, Nelson Mandela said:
"Negotiations on the dismantling of apartheid will have to address the
overwhelming demand of our people for a democratic, non-racial and unitary South
Africa. There must be an end to white monopoly on political power and a
fundamental restructuring of our political and economic systems to ensure that
the inequalities of apartheid are addressed and our society thoroughly
democratised...

"We call on our white compatriots to join us in the shaping of a new South
Africa. The freedom movement is a political home for you too."

Concluding his address he said: "I wish to quote my own words during my trial in
1964. They are as true today as they were then: 'I have fought against white
domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the
ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in
harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for
and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to
die.'"

Though spoken 15 years ago, all these words reflect the policies and objectives
of our movement to this day. They indicate some of the benchmarks against which
we will continue to assess whether our democracy is producing the results that
Nelson Mandela stated just as he regained his freedom after 27 years of
imprisonment.

Based on what Nelson Mandela said, some of the questions we will continue to ask
as we advance the process of the reconstruction and development of our country
are:

* have we effected a fundamental restructuring of our political and economic
systems to ensure that the inequalities of apartheid are addressed? 
* has our society become thoroughly democratised? 
* have we achieved the goal to ensure that all our people live together in
harmony, enjoying equal opportunities? 
* have our white compatriots joined their black counterparts to shape the new
South Africa? 
* have our white compatriots responded to Nelson Mandela's appeal to treat the
freedom movement as their political home too? 

What we can say very firmly is that the 1994 democratic revolution ended the
white monopoly on political power, for which Nelson Mandela called.

What we can also say equally firmly is that the end of the system of white
monopoly on political power did not mean the replacement of white domination
with black domination, an outcome to which the ANC was and is opposed, as
eloquently stated by Nelson Mandela in 1964.

Rather, we are engaged in constructing the democratic, non-racial and unitary
South Africa, which Nelson Mandela said was the overwhelming demand of our
people. The very structure and composition of our parliament reflects this.

We must also draw pride from the fact that we have also adopted other measures
to address the national question in our country, further to entrench the
transformation of our country into a democratic, non-racial and unitary entity.

Among other things in this regard, we have adopted various policies and
programmes and formed the Commission on Linguistic, Cultural and Religious
Rights, the Pan South African Language Board (PANSALB), and other institutions,
to guarantee equality of all in the context of a diverse society.

In his Cape Town address, Nelson Mandela did not mention the equally important
overwhelming demand of our people for the creation of a non-sexist society, an
objective that is now contained in our Constitution. Nevertheless, the political
parties and movements represented in our national parliament have responded to
this in a limited way, resulting in women constituting about a third of the
cadre of Members of Parliament.

Taking into account the policy position of our movement on this matter, as
stated many years ago by the late Oliver Tambo, our institutions of state,
including parliament, will have to work harder to address the issue of gender
equality. This is further emphasised by the decisions taken at the July 2004
Summit Meeting of the African Union (AU), which directed all member states to
achieve gender parity in public sector decision-making organs.

The 1984 January 8th Statement of the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC),
presented by Oliver Tambo, said: "Our struggle will be less than powerful and
our national and social emancipation can never be complete if we continue to
treat the women of our country as dependent minors and objects of one form of
exploitation or another. Certainly no longer should it be that a woman's place
is in the kitchen. In our beleaguered country, the woman's place is in the
battlefront of struggle."

Three years earlier, in 1981, Oliver Tambo had addressed a Conference of the
Women's Section of the ANC, during which he said:

"Women in the ANC should stop behaving as if there was no place for them above
the level of certain categories of involvement. They have a duty to liberate us
men from antique concepts and attitudes about the place and role of women in
society and in the development and direction of our revolutionary struggle...

"The struggle to conquer oppression in our country is the weaker for the
traditionalist, conservative and primitive restraints imposed on women by man-
dominated structures within our movement, as also because of equally
traditionalist attitudes of surrender and submission on the part of women.

"We need to move from revolutionary declarations to revolutionary practice. We
invite the ANC Women's Section, and the black women of South Africa, more
oppressed and more exploited than any section of the population, to take up this
challenge and assume their proper role, outside the kitchen among the fighting
ranks of our movement and at its command posts."

I mention all these directives, which remain part of our movement's policy,
because as the 1984 January 8th Statement said, our national and social
emancipation can never be complete if we continue to treat the women of our
country as dependent minors and objects of one form of exploitation or another.

Necessarily, therefore, the kind of South Africa of which Nelson Mandela spoke
on 11 February 15 years ago, includes the emancipation of the women of our
country. We must therefore ask the question constantly - what progress have we
made towards the achievement of this goal?

Our parliament, itself a product of the struggle of the women of our country,
who understood that their place is in the battlefront of struggle, must ask
itself this question, and take the necessary steps to ensure that, as part of
its obligation to help create the society of which Nelson Mandela spoke, it
facilitates the emergence of the necessary conditions for the emancipation of
the women of South Africa.

Similarly, parliament must pose the question to itself - have we effected a
fundamental restructuring of our political and economic systems to ensure that
the inequalities of apartheid are addressed?

There is no doubt that the honest answer to this question is that while we have
made significant progress in this regard, a great deal more will have to be done
to eradicate the legacy created by the inequalities of apartheid. This also
means we still have some way to go before we achieve the goal stated by Nelson
Mandela to ensure that all our people live together in harmony, enjoying equal
opportunities.

Our national parliament therefore has a task to determine what else needs to be
done to achieve this objective in as short a time as possible, what it must do
as an institution in this regard, and what its members must do to help realise
this outcome.

Parliament should undertake a similar exercise with regard to the call made by
Nelson Mandela that our country should be thoroughly democratised. Of particular
importance in this context is the access of the people to parliament, to help
improve their impact in terms of determining the future of our country.

This also extends to ensuring that the municipal Ward Committee system works
effectively, to improve communication between councillors and their electorate
and therefore the possibility for local communities to influence the development
of their areas.

All spheres of government will also have to continue to improve their
interaction with the people through the imbizo process. This also means that we
must also ensure that the government institutions respond speedily to legitimate
issues raised by the people.

Our Members of Parliament constitute an important layer of our national
leadership. They therefore have an important role to play in helping to mobilise
the people in the constituencies to which they are allocated, as well as help
the councillors and municipal councils in terms of their work among the people.

Of course parliament has the central tasks to make our laws and to exercise
oversight over the executive. However, parliament also has the important task to
intervene in other ways, such as the ones we have indicated, to improve the
effectiveness of our programmes focused on the reconstruction and development of
our country.

Thus would this important institution born of the struggles waged by Nelson
Mandela and millions of our people live up to the expectations expressed by
Nelson Mandela as we was released from prison 15 years ago.

Our country has made great progress in all areas since our liberation in 1994.
This has been achieved through the efforts of all South Africans, black and
white. Whatever problems might still exist, resulting from the difficulty among
some to outgrow the racist attitudes of the past, we can say that many among our
white compatriots have responded to the call made by Nelson Mandela that they
should join the process of shaping the new South Africa.

As a movement we can also see this in the numbers of our white compatriots who
have joined and support the ANC, consistent with the hope expressed by Nelson
Mandela that they should treat the freedom movement as their political home.

As we open the 2005 session of our national parliament and mark the 15th
anniversary of the release of Nelson Mandela from prison, we can say that our
country has never been better placed to achieve new advances in a variety of
socio-economic areas than it is today.

What this calls for is a determined and sustained effort by all the spheres of
government, our social partners and our people as a whole to implement the
development programmes that have been put in place. This must see our economy
achieving higher growth rates, creating more jobs and generating the wealth we
need to meet the needs of the people, taking us forward towards the realisation
of the goal of providing a better life for all.

Conscious of the fact that they are the product of a protracted and costly
struggle for liberation, we are certain that our Members of Parliament will play
their role to help achieve this result, so that all our people live together in
harmony and with equal opportunities, as Nelson Mandela said on his release from
prison.

We wish our parliamentarians success in their important work, which must help us
to achieve the goals we set for this Year of Popular Mobilisation to Advance the
Vision of the Freedom Charter.

Thabo Mbeki 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITY AND DIVERSITY

The ANC's experience of diversity, cohesion and united action

As President Thabo Mbeki outlines government's programme for 2005 in the annual
State of the Nation Address, a major challenge for the ANC and its alliance
partners is to ensure the democratic movement is able to support this programme
by remaining strong, united and cohesive.

The ability of the ANC to manage diversity and maintain unity and cohesion over
the course of its history has been central to the remarkable achievements in the
struggle for democracy.

It is for this reason that the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) has
devoted much time over the course of its last few meetings, and most recently at
its January lekgotla, to a detailed and thorough analysis of historical
approaches to unity and cohesion in the ANC. It also assessed the challenges to
the unity of the democratic movement in the prevailing political environment,
and the tasks the movement faces today in maintaining unity and cohesion.

As the ANC prepares for its National General Council in July, it will make the
details of the NEC discussion available within the structures of the
organisation and more broadly in society to foster debate and a deeper
understanding of the nature and development of the national liberation movement
in South Africa.

The NEC noted that the ANC's remarkable ability to remain relevant to the people
of South Africa over the course of 93 years, despite sweeping changes in the
country, has arisen from its consistent adherence to certain key democratic
political values, principles and practices, both in its public and
organisational life.

It has had the capacity to accommodate diversity within its ranks and among its
supporters while nurturing their ability for unity of purpose and of action at
decisive moments.

What has given the ANC this extraordinary capacity to survive and remain
relevant while both in South Africa and other parts of the world, movements and
parties of about the same age as the ANC have collapsed, become irrelevant or
are struggling to survive? Much of the answer lies in the history and experience
of the ANC over many decades of struggle.

To achieve maximum effect, any political movement relies on the collective
action of its supporters. Unity of purpose and of action are indispensable.
Unity is an organisational value upheld and pursued by all political movements
because it enhances the effectiveness of political action.

But, political collectives are made up of diverse individual members, who have
come together to pool their energies in pursuance of shared objectives. The more
diverse the collective - and the greater its potential appeal - the greater the
prospect of tensions and conflicts. It was therefore necessary to ensure that
sufficient space exists for the diversity of views to find expression within the
internal debates of the organisation. The ANC therefore developed a tradition of
vibrant and animated debate at all levels of the movement in which all members
had an opportunity to seek support for their views in open, frank discussion.

Yet, as in all political movements, debate at a certain point has to make way
for action. The tradition the ANC that evolved through practice is that while
debate and ongoing discussion is the life-blood of the movement, differences of
opinion should not undermine the movement's capacity for collective action. This
is achieved by the requirement that a minority viewpoint submits to the
majority. The majority viewpoint then becomes the position of the collective,
and all members of the collective are responsible for its articulation and
implementation. The minority may reserve the right to revisit these differences
within the structures of the movement.

By adopting such approaches, the ANC was able to survive and grow over several
decades of political turmoil, repression and illegality, and adapt to often-
changing circumstances.

After 1994, the landscape changed once again. Political freedom brought with it
the dividend of new opportunities for self advancement, careers in professions
previously reserved for whites, access to centres of the economy, and others. A
new dynamic emerged, not only in society at large, but within the ANC itself.

Some people outside and inside the ANC now began to regard the movement in a
different light. Some saw ANC membership as career enhancing, yet others came
into the ANC because it offered them access to the governing party. Personal
ambitions, sometimes linked to careerism, began asserting themselves among some
of the ANC membership. This has often given rise to factionalism, disunity and
conflict within ANC structures.

Yet, the challenges facing the country require not only for the ANC to be united
and cohesive, but for it to continue to broaden the base of those forces united
in the effort to transform South Africa into a non-racial, non-sexist and
democratic nation. In doing so, it needs to look back to the experience of the
last 93 years to ensure that it retains its skill for growth, renewal and
continuing relevance. Through participation in internal and public debate the
movement armed itself with the courage to retrace its steps when necessary and
to rethink strategy when required.

In the coming months, as ANC structures prepare for the National General
Council, these and other themes will be further expanded in papers which will be
released both for organisational and public debate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   
THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE IN DEMOCRATIC SOUTH AFRICA / PART V

A figment of the imagination

In the previous article of this series we paused to consider some of the
responses which the series had so far elicited, highlighting one response which
was particularly representative of a methodology common in public discourse in
South Africa. This approach, used in the response in question, involves the
misrepresentation of the views of the ANC so that they - these falsified views -
can easily be countered.

By making patently false allegations about the positions of the ANC, these
commentators would erect "scarecrows", posing as ANC views, and then easily
knock them down.

This week we return to the matter raised in a recent article by Raymond Suttner
concerning the debate of racism in post-apartheid South Africa. In doing so, we
will find ourselves confronted by yet another scarecrow, this time in the form
of the "race card", so regularly erected by the "elite" so that it may be easily
knocked down.

Writing in the 'Mail & Guardian' edition of 14-20 January 2005 about the
apparent retreat from politics of large numbers of people from the white
community who were part of the active resistance to apartheid, Suttner says:
"Certainly, some white former activists see their role as self-appointed moral
guardians who have to keep their black former comrades in check...Fundamentally,
there is discomfort with what is perceived as a form of Africanism that
allegedly excludes whites and undermines non-racialism..."

Whether or not there has been a retreat of the "white left" in the post-1994
period, and whether or not this reason, among others Suttner advances, is
sufficient to explain such a retreat, the article highlights the importance of
notions of race and racism to any discussion of the national agenda.

Immediately following the response by President Thabo Mbeki to Archbishop
Desmond Tutu's Nelson Mandela Foundation speech, an article in the 30 November
2004 edition of 'The Star' quoted political analyst Steven Friedman saying Tutu
had every right to be an independent source of moral guidance: "The president is
being edgy because Tutu can't be dismissed as a racist or someone who wants the
new order to fail."

While we agree, and have frequently asserted, that Tutu has every right to
provide whatever guidance he feels necessary, Friedman's assertion that Tutu's
comments left the president feeling "edgy" is questionable. It is consistent
with the device discussed last week of falsely attributing to the ANC
characteristics of "paranoia", "insecurity" or a "siege mentality". By making
baseless assertions about the state of mind of the president or the ANC (to the
extent that an organisation has a state of mind) these commentators are able to
avoid engaging with the substance of our statements.

Of greater relevance to this discussion, however, is the notion implicit in
Friedman's comment that the president has a practice (about which he clearly has
no anxiety) of dismissing critics as racist. Because Tutu is black and a pre-
eminent fighter against racism, Friedman suggests, the president is unable to
simply dismiss him as racist. This makes the president "edgy".

What is implicit in Friedman's comments is standard fare in the statements of
many other commentators. The ANC, along with the president, is frequently
accused of responding to criticism by calling critics racist. As we shall see,
it is yet another device intended to silence the ANC, to diminish the value of
its contribution to national debate, and to set the terms of public discourse.

As far back as October 1997, the South African Institute of Race Relations
(SAIRR), commenting in its 'Fast Facts' publication about the likelihood of
Thabo Mbeki being elected ANC President at the organisation's December 1997
conference, said: "As a recent article he wrote showed, Mr Mbeki is quite
prepared to use the race card against its critics." Exactly which article, the
SAIRR did not say.

More recently, in a 'special report' in 'The Economist' of 22 January 2005,
President Mbeki is accused of carrying out a series of personal attacks on soft
targets: "Commonly, Mr Mbeki accuses his opponent of racism if he is white, or
of supporting a 'white agenda' if he is black."

Another commentator recently went further, explaining the reasons for this
"common practice". In an article in the 'Financial Mail' of 4 February 2005,
headlined, 'A sense of siege', Justice Malala, wrote:

"In Mbeki's world - influenced largely by unreconstructed black consciousness
activists who now hold powerful government positions around him - SA is a nation
of largely racist whites opposed to change (it does not matter that some of them
fought apartheid) and embattled blacks who are viewed with suspicion by the
white minority. Hence this reductionist argument: criticism emanates from white
racists or their black tools."

It would be interesting to know who these "unreconstructed black consciousness
activists" are and exactly how they go about influencing "Mbeki's world". It
would similarly be interesting to know how Malala arrives at his description of
Mbeki's world view. Does he have any evidence for this?

Unfortunately, the readers of the 'Financial Mail' are, it seems, not to be
burdened with anything as tedious as evidence. They must be content with nothing
more than the claim itself, no matter how outrageous, and the author's assurance
that every word is true.

But then why should they need any evidence. The lie has been repeated so often.
Whether or not it is true hardly seems to matter. As we noted in the second part
of this series, for the "elite", perception is everything, with facts counting
for very little or nothing. Any facts that obstruct its efforts to set the
national agenda must be pushed aside and out of sight, to be replaced by
perceptions created to take the place of reality.

The "elite" is free to make all manner of false allegations without recourse to
evidence. It is up to the ANC, in the interests of accuracy and in defence of
its own political and ideological perspective, to disprove these false
allegations. This leads to the absurd situation where the ANC, the leading force
in the struggle for a non-racial South Africa, is constantly having to "prove"
that it is not racist in the face of a barrage of groundless claims that it is.

To prove it is not racist, the ANC is expected to adhere to a number of basic
positions the "elite" has devised. We will return to these later.

For now, we must address ourselves to the specific accusation that the ANC calls
its critics racist to deflect their criticism or to silence them. In the absence
of evidence presented to support the accusation, we are require to root around
for evidence to disprove it.

While it's not possible here to undertake a complete review of the public
statements of the ANC and its leaders over the last ten years, a cursory
overview of these documents fails to produce any evidence of the ANC or its
president labelling critics racist merely for raising criticism. Where the ANC
or its president have discerned views, attitudes or statements which are
implicitly or explicitly racist, it has not hesitated to say so, and to explain
why.

For lack of firm examples, perhaps we should look at the "soft targets"
described in 'The Economist' special report. It reports that President Mbeki
"first lashed out at Tony Trahar, the boss of Anglo American, the biggest firm
in South Africa, for saying that some political risk persists in the country.
Then he snapped at a white journalist, a rape victim who has written about the
terrible rates of sexual abuse in South Africa, saying that she was a racist and
out to denigrate black men."

In ANC TODAY Vol 4 No 36, published on 10 September 2004, the President
published a letter under the headline, 'Questions that demand answers'. He was
responding to a statement by Anglo American CEO Tony Trahar that political risk
in South Africa, while diminished, was not gone. The President noted that this
statement, taken in the context of South Africa's political and economic
history, raised a number of critical questions -questions, the President said,
that required answers. The President did not call Tony Trahar a racist, as the
'The Economist' alleges he commonly does. But he did raise a number of important
issues and examples which highlight how racist perceptions continue to shape
attitudes towards the country's political development.

Next, we are told, the President "snapped" at a white journalist. This is
presumably a reference to the President's letter in ANC TODAY Vol 4 No 39,
published on 1 October 2004, which considered why certain sections of society
would refuse to believe, even in the face of substantial statistical evidence,
that crime rates in South Africa were dropping. Making reference to a number of
instances, the President discerned in this denialism the psychological residue
of apartheid. The President was not alone; a number of academic and other
articles were cited to support this view.

In explaining this thinking, the President made reference to a statement made by
a South African journalist in the 'Washington Post' in June 2000, who wrote:
"Here (in Africa), (AIDS) is spread primarily by heterosexual sex - spurred by
men's attitudes towards women. We won't end this epidemic until we understand
the role of tradition and religion - and of a culture in which rape is endemic
and has become a prime means of transmitting disease, to young women as well as
children."

An article in 'The Star' of 4 October 2004 with the headline, 'Activist slams
Mbeki over 'race card tactic'', said the journalist in question had been
denounced by Mbeki "for being a racist - because of her views on crime and the
provision of anti-retroviral treatment to women who have been raped".

This is not true. The President did not call her a racist for her views on crime
or the provision of antiretroviral treatment to rape survivors. Instead, he
correctly pointed out that her claim to the effect that African traditions,
indigenous religions and culture prescribe and institutionalise rape, was both
untrue and demeaning to black people.

Where a statement or position is patently racist, as a society, we should not be
afraid to say so. That does not mean we are labelling an individual as
irrevocably racist, or incapable of holding any valid views. We are simply
pointing out the instances in which racism manifests itself. Unless, as a
society, we challenge racist notions, we will continue to allow them to shape
our thoughts and determine our actions.

Unfortunately, that runs counter to the agenda of the "elite". Because to
challenge racism in South Africa is to challenge apartheid power relations, the
very basis upon which this "elite" defines and defends its interests.

It is therefore important for the "elite" to foster the notion that racism does
not exist, and that racially-defined social and economic inequality is a figment
of the imagination. More specifically, racism is a figment of Thabo Mbeki's
imagination, and the collective imagination of the ANC.

Writing in the 'Financial Mail' article cited above, Justice Malala wrote:
"Race...seems to obsess Mbeki more and more by the day".

In a different edition of the same magazine, published on 24 December 2004,
Peter Wilhelm wrote: "Racism remains a fault line he [Mbeki] discerns
everywhere...He seems in his website vituperations one who dwells on the
colonial past and enduring racism."

An article in 'The Economist' of 22 February 2001, under the headline, 'Non-
blacks see Mandela's vision dim', said: "There can be little doubt that the ANC
finds race useful as an excuse for its failures, even though it is not
threatened at the polls."

All of these statements are intended to confirm the perception that the ANC is
unnecessarily and foolishly pre-occupied with race. Even though the ANC's
electoral strength is unchallenged, it finds race useful to distract attention
from the real issues in the country, which presumably have nothing to do with
race.

In a speech to the National Assembly in May 1998, President Mbeki said South
Africa was a country of two nations: "One of these nations is white, relatively
prosperous, regardless of gender or geographic dispersal. It has ready access to
a developed economic, physical, educational, communication and other
infrastructure...The second and larger nation of South Africa is black and poor,
with the worst affected being women in the rural areas, the black rural
population in general and the disabled. This nation lives under conditions of a
grossly underdeveloped economic, physical, educational, communication and other
infrastructure."

It was a plain statement of an objective reality that is experienced and known
by millions of South Africans every day. Yet it was condemned by many in the
"elite" as a further indication of the ANC's tendency to view society in racial
terms. The organisation was accused of trying to ignite the fires of racial
hatred and animosity.

Referring to the "two nations" theme, 'The Economist' article of 2001 says: "The
're-racialisation' of politics [in South Africa] is nowadays described in
footnoted detail in the publications of the Democratic Party and the Institute
of Race Relations, both of which have honourable records as opponents of
apartheid. And the burden of their charge...is borne out by the 'affirmative
action' laws and the public utterances of ANC politicians."

The contention of 'The Economist' is that these two "honourable" opponents of
apartheid - the then Democratic Party and the SAIRR - had determined by 2001, a
mere seven years after the end of one of the world's most iniquitous systems of
racial discrimination and oppression, that race had ceased to be a factor either
in politics or in society.

In July 2003, the leader of the Democratic Alliance, successor to the Democratic
Party, Tony Leon, addressing the National Assembly, said: "It is under President
Mbeki's watch that South Africa has moved from the politics of the rainbow
nation and reconciliation to the politics of race-labelling and race-
baiting...If the president insists on making all questions into matters of race,
then we are going to find ourselves in a dead-end street."

If South Africa was to be a real democracy, he said, government had instead to
tackle the real issues facing the country: poverty, joblessness, crime and Aids
and Zimbabwe.

It is astounding that a successor organisation to one with such an "honourable
record" as an opponent of apartheid is not able to discern in the "real" issues
facing the country today the imprint of that apartheid past. It is astounding
that such a party could not see the link between the poverty of today and the
racial discrimination, exploitation and dispossession of the decades that have
gone before. Can it possibly not recognise that joblessness, crime, Aids and
even the issue of Zimbabwe (to the extent that it can be described as one of the
real issues facing South Africa) each bear the imprint, in various ways, of our
apartheid past?

But then, perception is more important reality. Race is no longer a factor in
South African society, reason the DA and others like them, if it can be
represented in public discourse as little more than an ANC fixation; as little
more than a crude reflex to criticism.

The "elite" therefore declares the ANC to be racist. To help the ANC prove it is
not racist, the "elite" has devised the following basic positions for the ANC to
adhere to. To prove it is not racist, the ANC must not:

* Characterise any statement, action or position as a manifestation of racism,
even if that statement, action or position is self-evidently racist. 
* Describe any aspect of South Africa's social, political, economic or cultural
reality in racial terms or refer to "the apartheid legacy". 
* Seek to redress racial inequality in society through any mechanism which
recognises that some South Africans, by virtue of this artificial creation of
"race", were unjustly privileged (and some were unjustly discriminated
against)in access to resources and opportunities. 
* Encourage open and frank debate about our past and our present which draws
attention to the race, gender or class dimensions of social and economic
relations.

In this way, the "elite" is hoping, through the accusation of an obsession with
race, to steer the ANC away from certain topics and viewpoints which do not fit
its agenda.

Of course, the ANC cannot accept the prescriptions of the "elite". Its historic
mission, to build a united, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic society,
requires it to be honest and forthright about the prevalence, nature and effects
of racism in South Africa.

In the 14 November 2004 edition of the 'Sunday Independent', Essop Pahad, an ANC
National Executive Committee member, wrote an article under the headline,
'Racism is not yet dead and buried'. In the light of everything we have
discussed above, it is instructive to quote from this article at some length:

"No one could expect that, by some magical process, the deracialisation of South
Africa could be achieved in a mere 10 years. The experience of racism was
absolutely searing for the majority of our people, and it cannot be forgotten,
made light of or ignored. It must be dealt with. Put simply, ending racism
remains central to our national endeavour. It is part and parcel of the
liberation of a people. That liberation will not take place without acute
recognition of this fact.

"Racism makes its impact felt in many areas of our society. It impacts, so
obviously, on the economy and access to a variety of services. It lies at the
root of opposition to broad-based black economic empowerment. It stunts the
development of children exposed to it. It causes tension among various segments
of society at all levels. It is a poison in our body politic.

"The standard response, by some, to efforts to bring this matter into the public
domain is to allege that those who raise the issue are 'playing the race card'.

"This is to throw red herrings across the trail. It harks back to an old,
discredited order where people in privileged positions sought to manage and
control the debate, whether on race or other matters, and managed to do so
because others were silenced. Hence it was these managers of public opinion who
handed out the yellow and red cards, at will...

"To deal frankly and openly with racism is not a pleasant task. But it is
necessary, and the huge body of voters who return a government whose job it is
to provide a better life for all expect nothing less. Continuing racism impacts
negatively on the chances of this better life coming about...

"Today South Africa has a unique opportunity to unite all people across race,
language, religion, gender and other attributes. That we are looked upon as a
standard-bearer in this regard is because we have, in the first 10 years of our
freedom, laid the foundation for rational human intercourse across these
divides. This we achieved not by sweeping problems under the carpet, but by
facing the challenges decisively."

Everything we have said above suggests that we should turn Steven Friedman's
comment, cited at the beginning of this article, on its head. By answering the
criticisms of Archbishop Desmond Tutu - who is black and a pre-eminent opponent
of apartheid - President Thabo Mbeki removed the possibility that he may be
accused of answering criticism by playing the "race card". In this instance, the
"elite" is unable to deploy its favoured device to discredit the President's
views. And this makes it edgy.

To be continued...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This issue of ANC Today is available from the ANC web site at:
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/2005/at06.htm

To receive ANC Today free of charge by e-mail each week go to:
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/anctoday/subscribe.html

To unsubscribe yourself from the ANC Today mailing list go to:
http://lists.anc.org.za/mailman/listinfo/anctoday