Very many people have expressed their admiration of Helen Suzman since her death — which is fair. I don’t expect people to reconsider their opinions of Ms Suzman. What I really want to do with this post is introduce another perspective on Ms Suzman – as a white person in South Africa, one who benefited from apartheid, and who in some way, by providing the legislature with “legitimate opposition”, legitimised an unjust order.
Several years ago, I asked a former Progressive Federal Party/Democratic Party member who crossed the floor to join the African National Congress (ANC), to explain the basis of his decision. What he said has remained a metaphor for every time I have had to explain the difference between the objectives of white liberals in South Africa, and the liberation movement during the apartheid years.
I paraphrase: “Think of black people in this country as being tied down, with a very short leash that cuts into their throats. The liberals think that this is inhumane (as well they should) and want to ease the pain. The liberal solution is to ease the pain by lengthening the leash and easing the tension around the neck of the black person. I joined the liberation movement,” he said, “because I want to see the leash removed completely – and free the black person completely from oppressive restraint.”
This is the big problem I have always had with white liberals in South Africa during the apartheid period. Given the liberal tendency towards preserving a state of affairs that does not intervene with, or disrupt “the market” it is understandable, of course, that liberals would place “the market” or “the economy” before human rights or liberation. This preservation of the status quo became most significant around the issue of economic sanctions.
As most observers of politics during the apartheid years would recall, the liberation movement considered the disinvestment campaign and sanctions against apartheid as part of their arsenal in the fight against an iniquitous and unjust system. The liberals, and Ms Suzman in particular, were critical of sanctions. Ms Suzman, elected by one of the wealthier white constituents in South Africa, thought she had a better idea than indigenous black people and their representatives, or the liberation movement, about emancipation. Ms Suzman placed the demands or expectations of “the market” before that of justice for black people.
In an obituary the New York Times last week wrote the following:
“Her opposition to economic sanctions made her a contentious figure among some apartheid opponents, including protesters on American college campuses, like Brandeis and Harvard, where she received honorary degrees. “I understand the moral abhorrence and pleasure it gives you when you demonstrate,” she told a New York audience in 1986. “But I don’t see how wrecking the economy of the country will ensure a more stable and just society.”
I personally thought sanctions were destructive, but so were apartheid’s unjust laws … We had to make a choice and sanctions was one of the weapons we chose – unsurprisingly it was mainly white people with vested interest who were opposed to sanctions against apartheid.
During the 1980s, I was often called upon to explain the rationale for economic sanctions to European students, scholars and politicians. I was picked upon because I once wrote a piece in which I said that sanctions were probably not the right course of action – my alternative was bloody and more vengeful. I make no excuses for that, but let us not go into that.
The following was, however, the way in which I explained how (we) arrived at sanctions as an option. Imagine, I said: South Africa was a house in which black people lived. Then someday, a small band of whites took over the house and forced all the black people into a single room. They (the whites) then renovated the parts of the house in which they lived, they expanded and improved it and lived in relative prosperity. All the while they kept the black people confined to a single room with no lighting, running water or ways to manage their physical well-being. Although it was originally their own home, the black people were captive in a single room.
Whenever the black people protested, they were beaten up, imprisoned — some were even killed; whenever they petitioned for more resources, they were fed scraps from the tables of the white people. They lived in squalor in an under-developed room. Whenever the whites needed help to develop “their” part of the house, they employed black people; they “allowed” black people to leave their single room, with strict control over their movements … There was no way in which the black people could express themselves, nor were there any legitimate ways to break out of bondage. There was one option open to them, though. From their room, they could open a window to the streets and ask outsiders to cut the electricity and the water supply to the house. This, they thought, would bring the whites to their senses. We (black people) were prepared to endure for a while longer; our freedom was more important than a thriving household – from which we did not benefit anyway.
To cut a long story short, sanctions was an appeal by black people for the outside world to snuff out the economic stronghold that whites had on the economy, and thereby (try to) make them change their ways. Ms Suzman, kind as people may think she was, was one of the white people in the rest of the house.
Whatever we may think of the apartheid legislature, it was validated – within its own, narrow self-image – by a ruling party and an opposition. Ms Suzman chose to participate in an iniquitous structure that was destructive to black society. Her Progressive Federal Party consistently ran on a ticket of effective “opposition” — never abolition of the system. Her followers are well advised to look at the party’s election slogans over the years …
If we need white “heroes” or women who were “giants” or “relentless challengers of apartheid” (black or white), Ms Suzman is really not the place to start. I can list a hundred women, in a single stroke, who have contributed more directly to emancipation in South Africa – some of them have done so overtly, like Winnie Mandela or the late Helen Joseph, and others who may never be known, publicly, like Eleanor Kasrils — one of the strongest women I have ever met — or Albertina Sisulu.
Ms Suzman has left us … The last time I had a conversation with her, I told Ms Suzman everything that I have written here. She had a good life. She did well for Houghton; I am sure her constituents will celebrate her life. There are others, however, who have not had it as good as Ms Suzman or the people of Houghton during the apartheid years.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, January 4th, 2009 at 7:50 am and is filed under Perspective, News & Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
75 Responses to “Helen Suzman had it good; let’s remember others who did not have it as good”
Helen Suzman stayed in this country and fought back.
You sit in America and pontificate.
And I find it the height of ridiculous that the ANC complained that there was not enough in the coffers to spend when they came into power. If sanctions had worked - how much less would there have been?
Thought-provoking article. It would have been even better if you had included what Ms Suzman’s response to you was when you told her everything you have written here. Care to enlighten us now?
Perhaps the leash *should* have been lengthened first, before being removed completely. Uncomfortable as it may have been, it would have prevented you from exacting vengeance through blood.
Here’s a small thought - was not the single room just like the whole house before the small band of whites took over the house?
With thoughts like yours, perhaps we (like the rest of sub sahara africa) will return to that previous whole house condition.
Not being a liberal I have no time for Helen Suzman or her memory but I do vote for a black leader in every election, least you consider me more racist than you are.
Perhaps your outlook should change to something like this - ‘Thanks white people for building this good economy agaisnt the odds, now let us work together to take it to even greater heights so that all can benefit from it, equally’.
I think Helen Suzman had that vision whereas you clearly do not. You would rather see (like Uncle Bob) the ‘white’ economy destroyed so that all can live in squalor, equally.
Condemn with faint praise. Cheers!
Typical to blame someone for being born white.
One lonely “woman” in those days, when we were the lesser species in a man’s world.
How in hell could she stop the brutality of those years?
Go to jail to prove her horror?
Who in hell can stop Mugabe?
Your master. The holy ANC. How?
Just switch off all power - quick and painless for suffering masses.
Sanctions fed only S.A. capitalism and monopolies - not the masses.
You irritate me by your insensitivity to raise her shortcomings; as if she was to blame and could have prevented the horror.
Why does the ANC not want sanctions against Mugabe?
You force me to “remind” you of the horrendous necklacing we had to witness daily.
Instigated by the mother of the nation. I fail to see how that method had any merit. It had no effect on Apartheid and, in fact, showed the potential of the feared “black domination.”
Respect the elders who have passed on and remember their good deeds.
I hope, but doubt that, necklacing will be remembered in the Nation’s Mother obituaries and state funeral. That is the stain on my memory of a brave woman who faced SAPF.
Will you write that too ?
Old,female,paleface on January 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Ismail,
I enjoyed your piece a lot and agree with the gist of it. It was restrained and I’m sure you wanted to say more but were careful not to, for fear of being cut down. Mrs Susman was in deed a great lady but for the faults of her liberal agenda.
I have had similar arguments about Mrs Susman with my wife who is a HUGE supporter of the person and who thinks of herself as a liberal. Perhaps I’m a liberal too, but I prefer to view the world from first principles rather than blindly following an ideology. I suppose I’m a contrarian then, and when I vote, it is usually for strategic reasons, knowing that most politicians are untrustworthy. Mrs Susman was however, I think, was trustworthy to her supporters and as you rightly pointed out, they were more concerned with the markets.
Our country, like most other third world countries, South Africa finds itself in a dilemma where we have a minority of wealthy people and a wriggling, battling mass of poor souls. Let’s forget about the rest of Africa for a while - a hopeless basket case except for Botswana in my opinion. A better benchmark in my opinion would be to compare the Central and South Americas. Think of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina just to name the main players. There are HUGE gaps between rich and poor. How do they do it? Brazil is a fruit coctail of races while Argentina is mostly white; both with similar socio-economic problems as South Africa and yet race is not the pin around which everything else spins over there. Perhaps these countries are not to be followed as role models but the do seem to keep on going relatively successfully (for the mainstream) when compared with Africa. Then there’s India, China, Russia etc. etc. which are all countries where actual equality has always been a distant dream. If you get down to it, the greater part of the globe, save for Europe, Scandinavian countries and other English speaking countries are healthy, wealthy democracies. As a matter of fact, these socalled “democratic” countries make up a small part of the world’s souls. America in fact has a population of seriously poor people, a fact which tends to be forgotten.
While I agree with you on your argument that black people had a right to be free, a right which in my mind is an inalienable right, one has to consider the context. When Europeans landed in South Africa, they brought with them financial resources, skills and know-how which were unknown to Africa. It is unrealistic to expect South Africa’s “silver spoon” generations to hand over skills and resources for free. Whites always knew that there would be a day when they would lose power because they were outnumbered and it is understandable that they were afraid of handing over an economy to the undeveloped masses. That is why, in my opinion, they tried so hard to exclude “non-whites”.
Now that power has shifted, I’ll ask the question many others have asked: “Why then are the majority of African leaders so corrupt? Even the ones who have been lucky enough to gain a western education?”.
You see Ismail, I view you in the same light as Mrs Susman - someone who has had it good. You are a privileged academic who has been able to make a fine living from merely talking about what the struggling masses want and need. I don’t see you as one of “them”. It is quite another thing to earn a living by holding a real job.
Ironically, because of apartheid, a generation of folks emerged who would not have had the financial resources in an equal capitalist state to study overseas, let alone make a living from talking about the plight of the poor. And that’s why apartheid was its own worst enemy. It created a mandate for the disaffected through legislating the white man’s greed.
I have had a few arguments with fellow “silver spoon” whites on other Thoughtleader blog spaces over the need for reform. Most don’t WANT to change; scale down their expectations. That is often the argument for not wanting to emigrate to Australia: “Lower living standards. No maids”.
It seems that most people who taste power, irrespective of their social or cultural background, tend towards self-gratification and entitlement. I have met very few people who have a genuine interest in social upliftment above their own and I include the majority of contemporary struggle politicians in South Africa.
Some wisdom from the Old Testament paraphrased: “It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.”
I’m afraid the world never has been fair and just and never will. There will always be winners and losers. Being angry forever won’t help anybody in the long run.
No one needs reminders of the injustices of apartheid and the real question here involves a great deal more than ‘liberals’ putting ‘the market’ above humanity.
What Suzman’s example also asks of us all is whether it is just/preferable to work within an evil system to reform it peacefully, or to overthrow it by whatever means it takes, including violence if necessary.
Pecisely the same dilemma is raised by Zimbabwe.
Faced with the responsibilities of power, which cannot avoid the need not to ‘wreck the economy of the country’, the ANC put the preservation of the status quo ahead of sanctions.
The party has firmly rejected ‘regime change’ from the outset and Mantashe only last week spelt out that puntive action of any kind is not on against Mugabe - that the ANC will only ‘persuade’ him to stand down.
Ismail sounds just like Ronald Suresh Roberts with the usual anti-liberal grudge and an effort to monopolise the history of anti-apartheid activism for the underground radicals and paintbrush the liberals’ contribution out of South African history.
The greatest irony is that it was the Progressive/Democratic Party’ liberal democratic values that was adopted into the constitution because it was the middle ground between the NP’ Afrikaner nationalism and the ANC’ Africanist nationalism that could never be reconciled. Helen Suzman we salute you!
When are you going to build this bridge, cross over and get on with your live-you are so booooring!
Furthermore, i am not to sure wether those 250 000 murdered, hundreds of thousends raped, maimed, mutilated victims of ANC freedom entirly agree with your writings.
There is an old saying: “de mortuis nisi bene”. (say nothing but good about the death).
Mrs Suzman was rich. Should she have stopped being rich? She used her position to fight the system from the inside. Anything wrong with that? Should she have opted for Robben Island instead?
She had a lot more guts than the ANC members in exile, living in similar or comparable luxury in the US, EU and Russia while “lobbying” (a rich man’s job with parties and caviare) or furthering their own education on their hosts expense.
Just allow her this moment of unreserved glory after her death. If for no other reason, just out of respect for the death.
the problem with wrecking an economy to effect change is that once the change is effected, there is no economy to run.
which part of that concept is so hard to grasp?
that said, south africa was sitting on so much of the “easily” obtainable gold and platinum and controlled access to so much of the diamond trade that sanctions were never going to be the be-all end-all to this. this is a major reason that protesters had to go to individual companies to get them to divest because governments were looking at the big picture with regard to resource extraction and the world market.
a side effect of the sanctions in both south africa *and* rhodesia, by the way, were the state-controlled demand economies which remain in force in both places today.
[i could write about 2k words on why the rand exchange rate has been between 9 and 10 to the dollar for the last month, and it all would lead back to the influence of the state on the economy.]
in both cases, the state said “we’re not getting x anymore from the outside, so we need to produce y” and they did in some pretty unpalatable ways. there’s an argument that the excesses of the 1980s oppression of the masses were even more of a force in the liberation than the sanctions or the international pressure.
on the other hand, it could have been a lot bloodier than it already was: had there been china- or soviet-style execution of protesters, where would we be today? [just because the nats were fiercely anti-communist does not mean they were above “communist” measures of civil control.]
Reference my earlier comment… For example, to use your dreadfully simplistic metaphor (you can’t equate a country and its economy with a house), she might have said that her support for sanctions would have resulted in a major deterioration in the economy. This would have meant that when the apartheid regime was overthrown and a representative government took office, they would have had very little wealth to work in terms of uplifting the poor. As it happens, our economy was strong enough in 1994 to support a number of social policies that have benefited the previously disadvantaged.
Perhaps we should praise Suzman for her foresight. How much do you think it would’ve helped the poor if the ANC had inherited an economy like Zimbabwe’s?
I don’t know whether increased sanctions would’ve hastened the onset of true democracy, but I do know that a poorer economy would’ve made everyone worse off. For that reason, I think your article is naive.
Hi Ismail, this is a very interesting point of view, particularly in the light of the fact that today we have a black government in South Africa that is opposing sanctions against one of the worst dictatorial regimes worldwide, ie Zimbabwe, by all means.
If I follow your train of thought, the ANC and the South African government do precisely what you criticize about Helen Suzman. In fact, what they are doing is even worse: They do not remotely care about easing the tension of the leash that Mugabe has tied around the Zimbabwean people, let alone removing it completely.
They are propping up an illegitimate dictator who is sitting in the nice part of the house while the other, bigger but run-down part and all of its tenants (who actually own the house) goes down the drain completely. What’s more, the people of Zimbabwe have already shown the evil master the door. Yet, it pleases the government of this country to support any motion that preserves the status quo in the now ruined but formerly successful estate up north. The stakes must be quite high for the decision-makers in this country, mustn’t they?
You say you confronted Ms Suzman openly with your view. It would be nice if you could convey the same logic to the current political leadership in this country in order to install a quantum of sense in their decision-making regarding the situation in Zimbabwe…
Your comment is by no means unique, for anyone who wants to portray himself as a ranting radical. The question at this point is not whether you agreed with her or not. It is about giving an accolade on a life well lived, something that even people like our current President seem to realize. History will judge her and the time for real analysis will come, but now show some decorum and salute a captain of her era. And also relaize that sometimes we do the best with what we have, as a human being. I worked with many liberation struggle people including Marius Schoon, and was sometimes amazed by the decisions they made, and did not always agree. Yet I salute them for what they were, not for what they were not.
Let’s face it - all this talk of Suzman’s heroism belies what everyone fighting apartheid from the bush and the streets really thought about those who spoke from its tainted platform in the 80s and early 90s. Tutu, Mandela, and other ANC leaders’ applause for Suzman sounds like hat doffing Uncle Tom’s hollow cheers for the benevelent slave master. The noblesse oblige of the master always appears more welcoming than his mirror image in the slave driver who wields the whip. Truth is - Suzman stayed in parliament and had arguments with the ruling Nats because she felt safer with their rule and rather more afraid of the spectre of black rebellion occurring on the outside - a rebellion partly led by true white female heroes among whom we can count braves like Ruth First and Ray Alexander. Farewell to Suzman and her brand of liberal paternalism. Let the rest cower under the approach of the black revolution that is yet to emerge from the ranks of the poor, oppressed and exploited.
Oh the much hated iberals. The rigteous indignation of the true revolutionaries. Odd how it is the liberals who are sticking to their values in the new SA. The ANC and Communists have abandoned any pretence at still being revolutionaries. I suppose being a chardonay socialist is much better than being a hated liberal.
I’m bothered by the apparent lack of compassion in your post.Yeah,H.S. lived a loong and obviously cozy life but the attack could have waited a bit or plainly,how about a little respect for the dead?I personally think she was a smart woman,not my hero as such but overall she deserves credit for not just standing on the fence.Personally, I’m grateful to everyone who helped bring apartheid ’s death.Every South African can sing praises to themselves just like all those people who take credit for “relinquishing” SA to the blacks and such ,but H.S. was a truly honorable woman.
Such a shame that you did not blog this while Helen Suzman was alive, and able to respond. (we can only imagine the reply, from the Queen of Tart Retort)
Like Trapido, you erroneously compare Suzman with Winnie..
Stompie Seipei, a 14-year-old activist accused of being an informer, was killed after being abducted by Ms Madikizela-Mandela’s bodyguards and beaten at her house in late 1988. Her chief bodyguard, Jerry Richardson, was convicted of killing Seipei and is serving a life prison sentence. Richardson’s lawyer before the Truth Commission referred to Winnie Mandela’s 1986 speech to illustrate that she sanctioned the killing of informers:
“With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we will liberate this country”. Winnie Mandela referred to the method of killing in which victims suspected of being informers had a tire placed around their neck, were doused with petrol and set on fire.
A series of witnesses at TRC hearings detailed killings, beatings, torture and other atrocities allegedly committed by Ms Madikizela-Mandela’s bodyguards, known as the Mandela United Football Club, in the late 1980s in Soweto.
The commission investigated 18 human rights abuses, including a number of child-victims, allegedly linked to the bodyguards and Ms Madikizela-Mandela.
Bishop Storey on Winnie Mandela at the TRC hearings:
” The primary cancer was and always will be the apartheid oppression, but the secondary infection has touched many of apartheid’s opponents and eroded their knowledge of good and evil. One of the tragedies of life, sir, is it is possible to become like that which we hate most.”
“Apartheid has wounded people. Worse, it has destroyed people’s ability to know the difference between right and wrong. It is a moral tragedy, not just a political one. It is not enough to become politically liberated, we must also become human.”
“I want to say I admire Bishop Paul Verryn for the grace with which he has borne these accusations. To my knowledge, sir, everybody who has publicly accused him of these dreadful misdemeanours has withdrawn those words except one - it is my hope that before these hearings are ended that last remaining accuser will use this opportunity to withdraw her words and to take back the accusations that she made against him.”
… she never did. The TRC ruling lead to Winnie Mandela being found guilty of kidnapping, brutally assaulting a child, and covering up his murder. Initially sentenced to 6 years imprisonment the penalty was reduced to a fine of R15,000.
Who killed Dr Asvat? … we will never know.
We do know, however, that comparing Winnie Mandela to Helen Suzman is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Why not cite women like Albertina Sisulu? Elinor Sisulu? Mamphele Ramphele? Even Helen Zille tops Winnie on the leadership scale.
@Trotsky: “Let the rest cower under the approach of the black revolution that is yet to emerge from the ranks of the poor, oppressed and exploited.”
True revolutions of the “poor, oppressed and exploited” happened in France (late 1700), Russia (early 1900) and some other lesser known events of a similar nature. Not in Africa!!
The noisy and revolutionary African minds can be too easily pacified with a good salary and a 4×4, forgetting what they were noisy about in the first place. Proof me wrong!
Both Ruth First and Ray Alexander were friends with Helen Suzman.
Helen was not a rich woman. With her ability she could have become as wealthy as Tokyo Sexwale or Cyril Ramaphosa, had money, not justice, been her object.
I wonder why you are allowed to talk so much about the struggling masses in South Africa when you live in USA..the mind boggles as to how you can KNOW what is going on in South Africa at this very moment…please come and live here for a few years..with Zimbabwean borders bulging with people breaking the wires to come here and get treatment for Cholera…I cant even imagine you can talk about some one who gave her whole life for this country…have some respect for the dead. I hope people remember you this rubbish you write. Is someone paying you for this-they should be fired!
To immature readers - No need to attack the writer if you disagree with his views. State your counter argument or keep your infantile comments to yourselves. Asseblief.
Hi
intelligent and thought-provoking article and I can understand your point of view completely - having lived through the apartheid years as a student working news journalist.
Unfortunately, South Africa 2009 has been hijacked by thugs - who have stolen the legacy which millions of people sacrificed their lives for …
They exist not only on the streets, but in government and in business - leeching and stealing what they can - leaving nothing to the very people who sacrificed so much for a “free” south africa
that is reality of life today and it makes me want to cry with despair every day.
South Africans live in squalor and poverty, our hospitals are non-functional and our schools are breeding grounds of further dispair.
All this while the fat cats get fatter (BLAck and white) without a care int the world for their fellow citizens who struggle to feed themselves.
This is what south africans should stand up and fight against NOW regardless of what colour they are…
Not trash an old lady who did what she thought was right for a country she loved.
Not many people stand up against the tide for what they believe in.. she deserves credit for that.
I see someone mentions Tutu above as a counterpoint to Suzman’s contribution. Strange as each time he speaks these days, he’s shot down by young ‘radicals’ who call him a white man’s lapdog. So who speaks truth?
The truth is that we all want our own personal revolution to give our lives meaning. We are forced therefore to reject the whole or parts of our predecessors’ struggles as irrelevant or misguided to facilitate our own relevance.
It is incredulous that the good done by a single lonely spirit in a time of absolute madness can be denigrated by a person of your calibre. What my friend are you doing
To make a change besides pontificating and blowing your over fed horn. This lady stood up to a culture of white sanctimonious men that made her life very difficult.
Agreed not as difficult as black activists but never the less she did not have to do it. Be happy and celebrate the fact that she did help to give us our new found freedom. People like you who cant wait for a corpse to get cold before mauling the spirit and character of such make me sick to my stomach. I almost get the feeling that you are a closet racist with an abject hate for all thing white. Well my friend at least we are safe in the knowledge that a great spirit has passed even if people like yourself cant see that fact
Please stay in the US in luxury. I don’t begrudge you that. I just wish that money didn’t get paid from the South African economy for the dribble you write.
Very thought provoking contribution Ismail. I was very dissapointed at the government flying flags at half mast for Helen Suzman. Perhaps its true that the world is unjust, but that doesn’t stop us from struggling, by any means, for a more just world.
An example of this unholy liberal agenda is the effort at silencing every differing voice like yours. Just have a look at the responses to your post and you will see what I’m talking about. Today, all of a sudden, there were no supporters of apartheid and white people abhored it as much as we did.
Once again, a very enlightening and refreshing piece.
Isi, I found this piece lacking. You basically make it impossible for white liberals to win. If their contribution only amounted to legitimizing a corrupt system, how could they have done right in your eyes (I assume they could not)?
Logically speaking you must also take your argument further to the Zimbabwe situation today re: sanctions. I look forward to that piece.
Is this not the same Helen Suzman who tsaid black peole are like children and need the paternalism of the white men/women? Did she not lead a party that did not allow black membership until 1986? Did she not characterise the sanctions against aparheid as comminist conspiracy? We do not respect people because they dead- we respect them for their contribution. It is not suprizing that the white folks in this forum react as they do. We mourn the spirit of Ruth, Alexandra, Alexis and all other compatriots who did not mortgage their humanity for obscure legality!
Helen Suzman and the Progs stood for their liberal principles for three whole decades without ever giving up… they chose the road of Ghandi by providing non-violent opposition and logical persuasian and for that that they have to be admired
Lisa; interesting comment. you say the writer makes it impossible for ‘white liberals to win’ - why is the issue rooted in whether or not white liberals ‘win’? isn’t the point rather to celebrate people in the context of their actions, principles and intentions? should the value of white activism be inflated, even when said activists stood in support of the primary lifeline to the regime - economic sustenance facilitating and financing apartheid?
Is Suzman then being celebrated more because she was a white woman in power, who remained conscious of the injustice and exploitation inflicted even if her ’speaking out’ never interrogated the root of the system - the same system that overtly plagues Burma, Tibet etc? did her principles extend to true freedom or a more socially acceptable form of oppression?
Perhaps the celebration of ‘polite’ activists serves to undermine the real value and contributions of those [white] freedom fighters who dedicated their lives like Dennis Brutus….
Thanks for the great piece, Helen Suzman supported apartheid with all she had, she participated in the government of apartheid and condemn all its enemies. I don’t know why she should be praised when she did nothing at all and there are two many white women who fought again the oppression of majority of people who don’t even get mentioned
Could it be that this post would have gone unnoticed had you not used Helen Suzmans death as a launching pad.
Many of the points you make are valid but you undermine your position by denigrating a woman who undoubtedly helped, in her own small way, to bring about the demise of apartheid. Why do this, or are you merely feeding your hatred ?
I have noticed a tendency amongst certain fringe commentators to try and draw attention to themselves by criticising icons of the struggle such as Tutu and Mandela, and now Suzman.
None of these icons were without fault but their contribution to the struggle is a matter of recorded history, and this raises the question….. what was your contribution.
Equally important are you capable of contributing something positive to the future wellbeing of South Africa whilst closeted in the USA?
anton kleinschmidt on January 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Great piece Ismail, and I’m sure you aren’t surprised by the hostility of most of the responses. It’s actually laughable that some have seen fit to create a comparison of Winnie Mandela with Helen Suzman and yet only focus on the negatives we all know of umama Mandela. They do this while at the same time refusing to acknowledge any shortcomings Helen Suzman may have had!
By the way, stay in the States for as long as you need to man - you may find that some of those insulting you here now are writing from Perth or London!
One cannot be free of repressive restraint if one represses and restrains — as long as one presses down the spring, one remains a prisoner of the spring.
In time all South Africans will learn the meaning of freedom, it is freedom from intercessive ideology of men which holds one captive to the past, and limits individual realization as a human being.
By attempting to free the black man by repressing the white man - the black man remains repressed and restrained.
Your attempt to make light of the achievements of a white woman indicate that you remain repressed and restrained — sadly though you are in this case your own warder!
There is no heroism in loving those who love you! As with your opening statements - there is no nobility in rising up when all is lost, true nobility demands that one rise up at the peril of comfort!
Reading your stuff I somehow feel like an Israeli constantly surrounded by ill-wishers who always articulate a more ‘bloody and vengeful’ option, or should I rather say a defenseless white farmer surrounded by ZANU-PF veterans.
Good luck, and btw, sanctions were not what got the National Party to the negotiating table; neither did your infamous military struggle.
Helen knew what she was talking about. If it was Mugabe on the other hand …
ismail: the fact that sentletse is agreeing with you should pretty much indicate that your total point is rubbish.
sivu: i’ve been to the town in which ismail lives. anyone non-white with the financial means to live elsewhere but deciding to live there is insane at best.
i ate at the waffle house nearest to the airport when i was on my way out of town [was there for a family reunion]. apparently black folks aren’t supposed to eat at *that* waffle house [nor, given the racial makeup of passengers at the airport, *fly*], and only my not-really-american accent saved me from a Really Bad Situation[tm].
——–
so, okay, if mrs suzman’s participation in the apartheid-era parliament meant that she supported it, does the fact that we are all writing in english mean that we believe in the subjugation of all other languages?
Another sad end to what could have been a lively discussion.
The major problem with Ismail’s article is that he uses the occasion of the death of Helen to ventilate some negative opinions on her behaviour and character. One does not do so in a necrology.
Many responses hinted to that.
Responses from some African people (if the names give them away?) triumphing on this negativity do surprise me as I have been repeatedly told that the backbone of the African culture is the respect for its dead and its forefathers.
Does this all fall away if the body happens to be white?
If the latter is true -which I hope not- then something very hypocritical has slipped into the African culture.
Can we not have equality even in death? I claim the right to remember those who had it good in equal regard to those that did not, if they achieved something admirable in their lifetime.
Criticizing a critique is completely justifiable but critizing the analyst when you cannot respond adequately to the the critique is just another personal attack, in this case on Ismail Lagardien.
I had a great deal of respect for Helen Suzman while at the same strongly criticized her opposition to sactions which served to entrench white apartheid rule for much longer than would otherwise have been the case. She had a role to play and she played it well, in complete safety with her wealth and privilage of parlimentary immunity which protected her from arrest, bannings, torture and extra-judicial executions.
Your thought provoking article written from the comfort of your well worn chair certainly has evoked a lot of comment and opinion.
You must be really enjoying the stir that you have created.
Its a pity that while many are rubbing chips on their shoulders and licking their wounds,too many South Africans are still either or uneducated, unemployed, hungry , homeless, sick and persecuted by criminals .
Helen Suzman was opposed to all of this whilst your stance seems to tacitly condone it.
Lets move away from racism and build a better future for all.
And this, dear friends, indicates why SA is a divided country. Reading the responses to this article alone (let alone those offered by Traps and Llewllyn Kriel) nicely illustrates indeed why we cannot all just get along.
Just, but mostly unjust, criticisms of individuals are flung from both sides to the other, and while many people have convincing emotional points, there are very few intellectual points being made.
I do not know what the solution of SA is, but what we have to realise is there is no “us and them”. The distinction between black and white, between apartheid-supporter and freedom fighter, between liberal and conservative, HAS to fall away. We cannot see fellow human beings as “other”. As long as that is there, and we all protect that which is “ours” so vehemently, we will forever be poor in this country. Poor in spirit, poor in finance, and poor in life. We need to stop acting and thinking with our hearts, and start acting and thinking with our heads.
You do not drive a car by covering the windshield and navigate by looking out the rearview mirror. You only go places by looking forward. Let’s move on from our atrocious past, and build an awesome future TOGETHER!
I am of the opinion that Ayn Rand and George Orwell should be required reading for anyone wishing to matriculate.
There isn’t a leader in SA who doesn’t live in luxury while most of the population still live in poverty. Their positions give them the means to do so.
The difference is Suzman could have lived in luxury and not participated at all. Instead she chose to oppose the government from within - slowly winning respect and the hearts and minds of a misguided people. Did you give back the salary paid you by the world bank? I think I know the answer….
“For 13 years she was the sole Progressive Party MP and the only wholeheartedly anti-apartheid voice in the South African parliament. She achieved prominence both inside and outside parliament as one of the foremost champions of political reform and human rights in South Africa. She has been honoured for her work in the field of human rights by many influential organisations, including the United Nations with their United Nations Award for Human Rights in 1978, and in 1983 she received the New York International League for Human Rights Award. Twenty-seven honorary doctorates have been bestowed on her by various prestigious universities including Oxford, Harvard, Columbia, Brandeis, Yale, and Cambridge universities, and the university of the Witwatersrand. She has also twice been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2002 she was awarded the International Freedom Prize by Liberal International. A perverse “honour”, of which she is inordinately proud, was being declared an “Enemy of the State” by Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe in 2001. In 1989 she was made a Dame of the British Empire – a rare honour for a foreigner.
She was the only MP to visit Nelson Mandela and the other ANC leaders in jail and played a leading role in demanding better treatment for them and the release of political prisoners. Nelson Mandela writes in glowing terms of her visits to Robben Island – and the improvement in conditions that her interventions brought about.
She served as president of the South African Institute of Race Relations from 1991 to 1993. She served on the Independent Electoral Commission that oversaw the first democratic election in 1994, and was for several years thereafter a member of the statutory Human Rights Commission.”
______________
It seems to me that she doesn’t really need your recognition, admiration and respect - she already received enough from the rest of the world.
Ismael - Maybe the real cause of your complaint is the fact that she was not the member of some communist or Marxist liberation movement. She was a true liberal and wanted all South Africans to have the freedoms they enjoy today.
>An example of this unholy liberal agenda is the
>effort at silencing every differing voice like
>yours. Just have a look at the responses to your
>post and you will see what I’m talking about.
No, the commentators are not silencing Lagardien (although his posts are at best nonsensical), they are criticising his views.
That is what being a liberal democracy is about. Flame-baiters like Lagardien can say what they like publicly, and anyone can respond in kind.
Please, please try to understand that freedom of speech is just that — that anyone can state a point of view, and anyone can comment on it, free from sanction by the State or other powerful group.
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”
So, dear Thandile, until you get it through your skull that free debate, entirely unrestricted by ideology, is allowed and encouraged, South Africa will have no future as a democracy. Which means not only tollerating the people that dissent from your view (and that of Lagardien), but actively encouraging and defending their right to publicly do so.
Nadja, interesting comment on my comment. I never said the issue is whether ‘white liberals win’ - but criticizing them whether they resisted as Suzuman did or if they failed to resist at all or whatever they did, means that that they could not please the writer in any event. That is the issue. Of course one should celebrate people in the context of their actions - noone said the value of white activism should be inflated either - but acknowledged, rather than set aside as white liberals who can’t do right. One can see Suzman as a supporter of the regime or as a freedom fighter from the inside out. Depends on the eyes of the beholder.
But that does not address my further point.
This standard and critique of white liberals should be evenly applied including to the current situation in Zim. Do Isi’s principles extend to true freedom or a black/white form of oppression (Zimbabwe being excluded)?
If every ruling party is legitimized by its opposition, then what is the solution? No opposition? Ludicrous.
You do know the solution in SA really: it is time, slow time.
History is the great teacher and what is certain is that one day things will not be as they are now. It is impossible to know when that will be; meanwhile these are the times we all live in.
The only way out is the personal one @Brandon points to.
Any prison here is of our own making. Mandela famously escaped from his. Many others have. Many never do.
Ismail has confessedly enjoyed many advantages: higher education spanning the bracing air of LSE and the languor of South Carolina, travel, success in the hard-eyed world of journalism - should have rendered him more cheerful.
Dear God - are you ignorant! ALL parties were not allowed to be multi racial by decree of the Nats, which is why the Communist Party of SA became the SACP and went underground, and the Liberal Party disbanned. AND the ANC only allowed black membership until 1985. Coloured, Indians and Whites were not allowed membership.
Kwena
Tony Weaver publiched an article in the Cape Times a few months ago which was just a list of names of white women who fought against apartheid - there were hundreds and hundreds of names.
Sipa
Helen was right to be against sanctions. So was Alan Paton. So was Buthelezi. So was Margaret Thatcher. So was Ronald Reagan. The fight was against atheism and communism for the latter two, not against blacks.
And Helen was right when she said strikes would be more effective - they were. Which was the basis of the UMF, which worked. Unlike the non- effective, non- existant “armed struggle” myth of the ANC. The front line states dumped them as an embarrassment - and eventually the Russians did as well. Read some biographies. Mark Gevisser’s “The Dream Deferred” is a good start.
Further to my sheeshy comment, i’ll commend the Lady having done something in her life to fight apartheid. Most people thought they were contributing by giving their nannies old clothes and grocery money.
the fact that we’re having this discussion about this strong woman today is testament of something.
Helen Suzman took on the apartheid government with her mind, which is more than could be said for anyone who committed acts of terrorism during the regime.
Thank you for this submission, I agree with you completely she had it good,well I read a number of biographies about her, to be honest she never had any impact on me no matter how liberal she was. As a young South African myself the definition I had about liberalist differed from those who regarded themselves as such. I respected her as a fellow South African and politician. Her opinion were in opposite direction with the ones I had during apartheid however it would not be fair for me to ignore the little that other people acknowledges about her. My justification would be maybe she had to take a decision and whether that decision was good or bad it made her believe in what she stood for. Good article.
Ismail, if anything you know how to solicit a response!
Mine is: “provide another perspective” which everyone has a right to do, but if you really believe in the power of the pen and your motive is to use your talent to provoke thought not cause harm, it would be exemplary to do so consistently.
By this I mean that I look forward to your articles in upcoming years of “[black people or any person of colour]…in South Africa, who benefited from apartheid, and who in some way, by providing the legislature with “legitimate opposition”, legitimised an unjust order.” (Yes, for many the ANC are unjust - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and neighbouring countries are destroyed with consent)…if some current SA elect are anything to go by, along with Robert Mugabe, you will be writing articles like these for years to come.
On another note I would be interested to read your view point on women like Winnie Mandela who you list in your article entitled “Helen Suzman had it good; let’s remember others who did not have it as good” as I recall Winnie’s residence was in Houghton at some point…whilst many still lived in squalor in an under-developed room? Okay, I’m just badgering but its what you asked for or you wouldn’t write what you write, right?
Either way people are never really happy. If Helen did nothing she would’ve been cited as an outright bigot.
Personally I think she possibly did more, unintentionally, to highlight the role women could play in shaping society. But that’s an opinion not a quantified statement and I’d be interested in a productive story that could enlighten me on whether or not this is true.
Thanks for challenging my thinking even if I don’t agree with you.
You speak very loudly about racism, and racial benefit. When you are in the exact same position, I’m battling to decide which part is sadder, your blatant racism, or your hatred to what you are benefiting from. What have you contributed for others, or other races that equals, or that which even comes close to what Helen contributed. Let the one with no glass roof cast the first stone. And from your article, that sure as hell is not you.
What strikes me about the anti HZ brigade is just how mean spirited their view of the world really is. They have been unable to leverage political and economic freedom to their personal advantage and seek someone to blame for this failure.
In contrast to these carping comments you might care to read what Stanley Uys has to say at
anton kleinschmidt on January 7th, 2009 at 7:33 am
To all those effronted by Largadien’s views, I pose this simple question: should liberated France have bestowed equal honours to both the Resistance and the “Opposition” in the Vichy parliament?
Thank you for the interesting piece, it affirms what I have always believed about some white liberals: They seemed to be saying ‘I don’t support appartheid but…’
Obviously the perpetuation of the apartheid system served their interests but now that we have freedom the have shed their skins and make as if all they want are the protection of civil liberties and an to crime etc. fooling us into thinking that clour has no bearing in their political outlook.
@ Jean… a nit pick, but I think that you meant affronted. Check effrontery.
Your analogy is an apt only in so far as it ignores the relatively minor contribution that the Resistance made to the liberation of France and Europe. Not sure that struggle heros and their praise singers would consider their role as minor.
I do not understand why you would choose to equate Suzman supporters with Vichy. Whether you like it or not there was a difference between the Progs / DP and the Nats during apartheid. I suspect that anti white racists would prefer to ignore this reality as it undermines their exclusive claim to victimhood
@ A Luta
Are you suggesting that if I were black I would not want … “the protection of civil liberties and an to crime etc” whatever the latter means.
anton kleinschmidt on January 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
You mention Eleanor Kasrils I googled her and this is what came up
Eleanor Kasrils pardoned
JOHANNESBURG — Eleanor Kasrils, the wife of Water Affairs and Forestry Minister Ronnie Kasrils, was granted amnesty by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) yesterday for her involvement in the Durban Central Post Office bombing in 1962.
Mrs Kasrils was also pardoned for bombing the Durban security police offices, stealing dynamite, escaping from police custody at Pietermaritzburg’s Fort Napier Hospital, (illegally) crossing the Botswana border and destroying electricity pylons near Pinetown between 1962 and 1963, said TRC spokesman Phila Ngqumba.
IN which wounding eight people wounded, three of them children.
I dont have to google Winnie to know that she used violence.
My problem with you is your whole article basically states if you fight for something you believe in from within the law and don`t use violence or destructive force what you are doing is worthless.
I don`t like what you are saying so should I use Eleanor Kasrils solution
Ismail, you are a compassionate intellectual with integrity. Do not expect your insights to be received with the respect they command on this site because many commentators are racist-denialist-fools.
You are a true gem and I thank God we have people like you to fly the South African flag abroad and inform the West about the truth.
Phillipa Lipinsky on September 9th, 2009 at 3:27 am
[…] The views I expressed in this short post are consistent with the ones I stated on Thought Leader after the death of Helen Suzman more than a year ago, in which I said that Ms Suzman had it good… This was written by […]
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Ismail Lagardien is a political economist and teaches at Elon University in North Carolina.
Ismail's links
Alternet The best source for alternative news and writing about the media in the United States
Commondreams Excellent source of some of the better journalism in the United States
In a recent post Bert Olivier referred to being called a "clown" for being critical of capitalism. As it goes I have been doing some research about c...
There's a question that has been bothering me for as long as I can remember. I can't quite tell it straight. It has to do with the causes with which w...
I intended to submit a commentary in response to Macca’s* reply to my original post, but I need to provide greater clarity on my own (very personal)...
Rod MacKenzie’s comments about the standard of English on Thought Leader (see the box, below) are well taken. It is, sometimes, difficult to follow ...
There are several questions about the proposed bail-out of the once most powerful capitalist institutions on Wall Street that have been quite botherso...
Loading ...
Helen Suzman stayed in this country and fought back.
You sit in America and pontificate.
And I find it the height of ridiculous that the ANC complained that there was not enough in the coffers to spend when they came into power. If sanctions had worked - how much less would there have been?
(Report abuse)