The last twenty years have seen the death of intellectual debate in South Africa. In the book The Poverty of Ideas, edited by William Mervin Gumede and Leslie Dikeni, a set of authors mourn this death by tackling head on the uncomfortable issue of the “devaluation of ideas in the public sphere in post-apartheid South Africa”. It examines closely the intolerance of criticism and the implication of this for our democracy. This death of debate has resulted in the tendency to suppress dissenting voices in and outside political parties. It has also resulted in the deafening silence of civil society and the collapse of academic institutions’ intervention in public deliberations. All of this in my view has resulted in the demobilisation of the voice of communities — these voices have now fallen silent and have sold out our nation’s intellectual capital to debilitating patronage.
My observation is that if you are an ANC heavyweight who has earned his place in history, your dissent becomes a lot more tolerable. Breaking rank and daring to be self-critical is something that seems achievable if you have little to lose in political circles. If you are a Pallo Jordan people believe you when you say that debating in the ANC is like “a conversation amongst the deaf”. If you are a Trevor Manuel, full of arrogant confidence, you can be brave enough to be the first to say that the ANC’s deployment system is in shambles — a whole year before the party can remotely admit to same. If you are a Kader Asmal you may not hesitate to say that the “ANC has lost its moral compass”. If you are none of these big names you get insulted and can probably be hauled before a party disciplinary committee and end up on the periphery of politics. But a Winnie Mandela and a Julius Malema can get away with much more, owing to their populist streak, they spare no one in the articulating their own unsanctioned views. This state of affairs in the ruling party has made sure that where a million flowers used to bloom with position papers from across the membership contesting ideas on various matters affecting our people, there is an excruciating drought of inspiring debate if not a tragedy of silence making our public discourse among the most atrocious in the world.
One would have hoped that with the revival of political activity post-Polokwane and the birth of Cope ahead of last year’s poll things were going to change. But last week’s knee-jerk reaction of Cope leaders to public criticism by its youth wing and other fearless party people who dared point out that the party was a disappointment in its founding year, was met with ANC-like denials and was characterised as “disinformation” and “destructive” instead of being seen as an opportunity to debate vigorously this birth of an alternative political party in South Africa. But given that this is the reaction of an unrepresentative sample of what makes up Cope, one still has hope that the broader members will live up to the Bloemfontein dream of an organisation that tolerates open and honest deliberation in its ranks.
The failure of perspective to triumph at the recent SACP conference resulting in a “Nujoma-like” amendment to the constitution to keep Blade Nzimande in place, the failure of the IFP, Azapo and UDM to debate their leaders who have overstayed their welcome points to a wider political culture that has not embraced dissent as a necessary dialectical tool to deepen debate and advance a cause. A tombstone to the hope that we will ever be able to reverse the “retreat of intellectuals” is bemoaned in The Poverty of ideas.
And so it seems to me that it is left to civil society to fight for a space where the country’s intelligentsia can exchange ideas. One of the lethal weapons against debate must be the extraordinary levels of patronage that have engulfed our society. How many businesspeople have you seen criticise the government’s economic policies or at least its failure to implement certain basic economic interventions to deal with poverty? How many have come out openly to denounce the ANC mutterings about nationalising the mines and the Reserve Bank? Strange silence. No prizes for guessing which is the one symbol of the collapse of the Zimbabwean economy: a reserve bank in the pocket of the state which has the unfettered ability to print money and in the process renders the country’s currency meaningless. Is this what we want for South Africa? Is political correctness so important for the business-minded that this pending economic suicide can happen on our silent watch? Is the immediate gratification of a government tender more important?
Turning to matters of advocacy you may be forgiven for thinking that the Church as an institution of civil society has migrated over the last couple of years. While terrifying levels of moral bankruptcy among our politicians at the very top, corruption, dishonesty and greed are becoming the hallmark of our political story across the board, we wonder where the prophetic voice of the Church is in all this madness? Where is the voice that denounced the apartheid atrocities and moral ineptitude? The little we see of the Church’s intervention in the affairs of broader society, is that of playing chaplain to the administration — cosying up to the powers.
As if this was not enough, you have the universities that have decided to close the book on being vocal. The University of Limpopo reportedly postponed awarding an honorary doctorate in commerce to ousted president Thabo Mbeki following his defeat at the ANC’s Polokwane conference, ironically held at the university. One hopes these allegations are not true because they would point to the beginning of the end of academia as a respected fountain of fearless ideas regardless of who is in power.
So people across the land are dying because the municipal politicians have their nose so deep in the trough they can’t lift it up long enough to smell the coffee of discontent and outrage brewing in our streets. Though many a boiling pot spilt over into our streets last year in the form of violent protests, many more communities are dying in silence in line with this culture of acquiescence taking root in our society. But we can’t put a lid on that boiling pot forever, we will soon regret being a nation of self-censure with deference to often misguided historical and political loyalties. The death of any serious debate in our society must be located within this sad reality of our times. And so I wonder quite frankly: with such a poison in our political chalice, how can a thousand flowers bloom?
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 8th, 2010 at 6:38 pm and is filed under Perspective.
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.
38 Responses to “The death of debate in SA”
Just last weekend,this issues was raised by friends and I have just asked them to read your posting,thanks JJ,and hope real debates are going to start again amongst the poeple
I think the situation is worse than this article describes. Look at how “stalwarts” like Cronin and Blade get shouted down by the most ill informed and immature quarters and then of course there’s the thinly veiled death threat to Asmal. I’m also not so sure that this is such a huge break from the grand tradition- Pallo Jodan could speak of his personal exile experiences at the hands of his own party but then I’m not holding my breath. Populism and nationalism were always there but now coupled with actual power things are a little more out in the open. One would think dissent would be a bit more out in the open too but that’s dreamland… keep it up OJJT
JJ, you have hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head. For the sake of SA and the rest of Africa, Pleez, Pleez also circulate this article to the Cope forums. And by the way, when are we going to see blogs and other discussion forums on the COPE website? Let us talk and discuss issues with patriotic fervour and reasoned argument instead of playing the man and hurling insults. Show that COPE can be a beacon to our, seemingly lost and fast fading, dream by the actions of its members and the richness of its discourse. The sagely say, “One showing is worth a thousand words”. The African Renaissance may still come.
JJ, my question to you is why did you(plural)allow COPE to trod like a steam engine, instead of the bullet train we were all hoping for? Do you know the amount of hope we put on this young party, as an alternative for the dispondant citizen tired of the ANC? how could you betray us like that because of unnecesary infighting?
Spot on JJ, i think we must liberate our minds from the shackles of patronage and intimidation and really engage with issues that advance us as a nation
But why are the so-called intellectuals not engaging in a non partisan debate? Just before Polokwane there were vibrant memorial lectures which had an anti-Zuma slant about them.I thought this was a start of a good thing because the other side responded in kind. My observation is that the so-called intellectuals do not want people to have the right to reply.They just want to have the last word which unfortunately won’t happen. So-called intellectuals believe in freedom of speech as long as it is not extended to the so-called non-intellectuals like Malema. As far as I know no one has been killed or arrested for speaking the truth to power. The only thing that has happened to those who dared to raise their voices against any establishment, was to be ridiculed, sidelined, given no space to respond to allegations, and have their academic records published in newspapers.The only reason why so-called intellectuals do not participate in non partisan debates is the fear of loosing patronage, be it from government, industry and academic circles.
Very true. The only real debate happens in the ‘inner circle’. And within it, as you point out, some are more equal than others. In the big, cold outside world, business are mute and quivering. Universities, which ironically in the 80’s were hotbeds of protest activism and commentary despite the repressive regime, are now silent corridors of mute quivering academics who dare not comment on anything at all, the stultifying PC blanket silence, averted eyes and everyone focusing on their own business making a mockery of the ‘academic freedom’ they fought for. SA’s civil society may be our last hope.
“there is an excruciating drought of inspiring debate if not a tragedy of silence making our public discourse among the most atrocious in the world”
Great article, and I think this sort of topic needs to be put on the agenda, but come now, isn’t this just a tad too dramatic. An alien visiting South Africa would think we have the most unintellectual, apolitical citizenship around. Websites like ThoughtLeader, vibrant and dynamic, are a rarity in most African countries; and while newspaper numbers are dwindling overseas, some of our publications are increasing in readership. And can a single politician get away from a good public humiliation when he or she says something stupid? Of course not. And then all us public writers will analyse the hell out of why/where/how/when this person said it. Debate rages!
However, I certainly agree that the impact of these debates are minimal. They remain in the public sphere and actually do not make an impact where they should. That is definitely highly problematic. How do we solve it?
One can’t have political freedom without economic freedom and this is why many people are afraid to speak out on matters that’s important. The jobs in the state own companies are not given to people because of their qualification, they given to people who have a high standing in the party. One can have a degree from the best university in the world but if that person is not a member of the ruling party in black Africa forget about getting a job. This is why the educated blacks in Africa are leaving the country and coming to north America and Europe. The individual has more freedom in a free enterprise system than they do in a country run by a state own economy. COPE should be promoting a free enterprise economy and they are too quit about doing. This could be COPE drawing card of members to their party.
A good example of “the death of debate” is the silencing of the debate on nationalising the mines.
The problem is tyranny and the destruction of freedom of speech. Tabane thinks that this is a problem when people whom he likes are silenced. However, he is keen to silence opinions he disagrees with.
Therefore he is part of the problem, and this is true (of course) of Gumede and Dikeni (themselves very inept and dishonest debaters who have never had ideas of their own).
The real death of debate in south africa was engeneered by your political mentors, Mbeki and his puppets Lekota, Shilowa and company. In fact we are witnessing the resurretion of debate in South Africa south africa. Everytime Zuma encourage debate on an issue, he is always being blamed of being undecisive and hiding his intellectual bunkruptcy through debates. Don’t opt for short memory, its dangerous, very soon as we have detected during elections campaigns, you will be lobbying for South Africans to forget about the past and concentrate on the future, hypothetically blaming people of “race cards” and “reverse apartheid”.
JJ this is very important and I think that the tone of the debate has to be very respetful, I think that part of the reason Kenda says what he says is because people think that to be critical is to be vulgar. We are far from being there and the concerns must come out of the dark places and return to the public discourse platform and the debates be conducted in a respectful and constructive manner.
Onkgopotse you mention every other major party except the DA. I think this is not the first time that you have totally ignored the positive contribution that that party makes to the debate on RSA politik. Can you not acknowledge positive contributions? In the context of your writings within this forum such lack of acknowledgment conveys extreme prejudice. You, in the context of your article have not contributed to the debate by ignoring the official opposition. Perhaps you secretly support the DA and fear that by writing about them you might betray that fact.
The distinguished author is right that the de-legitimatising of popular debate within ANC circles has spread into the media and partly into academia (a few islands of light still do exist). And I applauded articulate argument. But I have always been puzzled by the ANC’s distaste for criticism. Given their commanding position and the lack of any real political opposition, it is difficult to understand what the ANC is so concerned about. However, it is a rather sad fact of revolutions (and revolutionaries) that they have a nasty habit of adopting mechanisms and patterns of behaviour left over from the ancien regime. The Afrikaner Nationalist Party of Old certainly attempted to squash ‘legitimate’ anti-apartheid debate within its own constituencies through a series of popularist and anti-intellectual appeals to party loyalty and the ‘cultural integrity of the Afrikaner Nation’. Although the ANC has not strayed so far down this path, it has taken a few steps towards it. Indeed, I would suggest a warning for all those who would condemn criticism of the ANC as ‘disloyalty’ and ‘illegitimate’. The Old Afrikaner Nationalist Party followed very similar tactics (of course the Afrikaner Nationalists had other more straightforward methods of ‘criticism control’ -it is amazing what torture and detention without trail can achieve is it not?)
I totally disagree! Public debate is at its highest point. In the past Nelson Mandela and Mbeki made choices for us. We just had to follow suit. Zuma has opened space for debate. For the first time we know that whites still hate Blacks in the same intensity as in apartheid.
The only difference now is that ordinary people’s voice is taken into account. This surely aggrieves the so called intellectuals who’re now not given an automatic recognition because of their MAs and PHDs.
Great thought.
This is far rooted than we can think, it goes back to our childhood and even our schooling system. I was always told, “cause i tell you so” when asking for clarity. Maybe that’s why our leaders can marry many women becasue when they asked the ones that did it, they were told so.
Prior new despensation, people (atleast where i grew up) were united behind one cause and no one dared trying alternatives simply becasue they weren’t any alternatives of that they were afraid of being labelled impimpi for not embracing a way forward of leaders.
We [humans] tend to follow trends more than make them, so if we are brought up in a socieaty that does not allow differing opinion, we will breed the likes of Julius, Balfour crowd than torch libraries, varsity students that vandalise libraries and security guards that can beat you up for not joining their strike even though you’re not a guard.
In English, there is no word for someone who is not an intellectual that is not also perjorative. Words like ‘dullard’, ‘ignoramus, ‘imbecile’, ‘moron’ and ’simpleton’ are demeaning and even insulting. So I suggest a word like ‘nontellectual’ meaning someone who is not an intellectual but is also not a fool. A nontellectual would be someone of average or slightly below average intellect but still a respected citizen of society. Only when intellect becomes severly retarded would we resort to words like moron. So, we live a country where most people are nontellectuals. They actually fear debate because it may make their inability to present as intellectuals plain and clear to all who debate them. Intellectuals would be derided and called racists - black or white - and blame such as ‘apartheid!’ assigned to anything that their average intellect was unable to comprehend or refute. Telling intellectuals to “go home” is also often see. The proof of this situation is the frequency with which it occurs in the new, unimproved, South Africa.
I agree with you Sipho wholeheartedly that the intellectuals believe in freedom of speech so long as they have the last word. when they get challenged they interpret that as intolerance. What rubbish?!
The debate has died because these self proclaimed intellectuals like the Sipho Seete, Xolela Mangcu and the likes have nothing to offer other than quote us writings of ancient real intellectuals.
@David Howard - it’s regrettable that you don’t take it too kindly when members of the ANC respond to your criticism of their organisation.I thought debate involves more than one side.
@Student - I think you should go beyond ridiculing Malema and engage what he says to prove that you’re more intelligent than him.If you put up a good argument against what Malema stands for, the public will ignore what he says.
The ANC has less than a million paid membership in a country of +-45million people, which tells me there are more people who would vote otherwise were a credible alternative to emerge.
@Graham Johnson, I posted a comment on this page about two months ago about the same subject matter. I said that the difference between the blacks in the US and Africa was the black intellectuals in the US wrote about the social conditions of blacks in the US. Many of them tried to come up with solutions to address the social conditions of these people. The intellectuals were the one who wrote and shape the western Europeans countries and came up with ideas to move these countries forward. Most Africans intellectuals have been chased out of Africa because most African leaders do not like independent thinkers to question their government. Sipho got it wrong there is no debate in SA under the ANC the debate is with Blade and Malema and I would not call this intellectual. However, there are some writers in Africa that have managed to survived in Africa like Soyanka, Moslesti Mbeki, Achille Mbembe and a few east African writes.
@Sipho, I have to take issue with you on the difference between intellectual debate and political debate. In the first place intellectual debate is usually based on science and political debate most of the times are not based on science. When I speak of science it can be based on social science or pure science. The intellectuals are looking for knowledge and the truth where political debate is used to gain followers. Most intellectuals works are still being studied that were published two hundred years ago and people are taking their ideas to move the world forward.
the mind is impotent, that reality is unknowable, that knowledge is an illusion and reason is superstition qoute from ANY RAND, She continues to say culture cannot exist without a constant stream of ideas and the arlert, independed minds who originate them, and yes JJ there is death of debate within our country
Mzwandile Dlabazana on February 11th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Mr Tabane, you hit the nail on the head! This is a sad state of affairs in our country.
I have recently followed the blog comments (and participated) of an American web site. I was surprised to see that they placed the comments directly without prior moderation. Secondly I was surprised to see what downright despicable comments were made by some participants. But amid all this there was a lively debate going on voicing various perspectives. People engaging in debate concerning the issue. (Even admonishing the despicable one).
I was thinking about the blogs run by newspapers in our country. Comments are moderated and often editorial guidelines include an undefined, general requirement such as “Unacceptable comments will be deleted without notification”. If this guideline was applied to the American blog I followed, half the participants would have been disqualified. Not because their viewpoint was not politically correct, but because it was insulting.
I have learned in South Africa that the pen is mightier than the sword, but the Editor is mightier than the pen. The Church is silent because their viewpoint is many times not acceptable to the politically correct media. So at the end of the day it seems to me we suffer from an epidemic malady at all levels of society.
@Sipho, If you cared to ponder about what i said before hitting the keyboard you’d have read that in fact i’m rediculing our society. Julius, the crowds, everyone we ‘ve laid blame on for murdering debate are not islands, they are part of our society, they’re influenced by our society including intellects of such forums as this.
@fergie, point of correction; there was no debate even before the ANC came into power, SA has never been a talking society, from the saxons and dutch everyone has just fought to get what they want.
We can blame the leaders of organisations, but how do we handle difference of opinion when we’re enjoying that braai and cold ones? Politicians, leaders and public speakers are merely a mirror of the broader society.
@ Sipho you say:
“For the first time we know that whites still hate Blacks in the same intensity as in apartheid.”
perhaps you should read a bit of wise Eastern philosophy which says, “the faults you see in others are your own faults.”
I am white and on the wrong side of 60 and in general the problem of most whites in SA is not hate of blacks but fear, which is the emotion that has lead to most of histories worst deeds.
Fergie its regrettable that you had to rely on semantics to make your point. An intellectual is never restricted to science, an intellectual is someone who has a better grasp of any subject and formulate convincing arguments. You make it sound like a political debate has to be devoid of intellectual engagement by rule. I suspect this view is only limited to South Africa or maybe the third world. I suppose when you say most of the time, you’re creating space for people like Obama to say their political debate is intelligent. Interesting world view, I must say.
By the way there are two Siphos in this blog, I happen to be the first to post. Not that I want to deny the other Sipho, his experience and observation of white people in relation to black people.
@Sipho, the issues that have not been debated: 1.Decentralized services deliveries.
2.Elector reforms to allow the local government to be elected by the electors.
3.Direct election of members of parliament by districts.
4.Direct election of the president.
5.The provinces be allowed to make laws and collect their taxes.
@Sipho One, I think that you and I are on the same page but, most intellectuals are looking for the truth with their ideas. However, on the other hand, I see political debate as something used to gain followers and not necessary a search for the truth.
@ Fergie - as a rule intellectuals are supposed to search for the truth, unfortunately in practice intellectuals are up for sale.Most socalled intellectuals in our country are aligned with political parties. SAFM would use the same socalled experts time and time again and expect different insights. The same goes for 702, MetroFM, KayaFM etc. The media only invite experts whose views are aligned with their editorial policies.
@ ALL.
The responses have been largel constructive. We need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable i find that there are people who fail to look beyond the messenger and dea with the issues on the table.
@Sipho as usualy - no substance to bring to the table, its sad my brother. By the way do u have your own blog somewhere where you originate some ideas - I would like to visit it and comment on some of YOUR OWN ORIGINAL THOUGHTS…..that could reveal a thing or two maybe.
@Sipho
I have to agree to some degree with Sipho,the “intelectuals have become too important”,it seems that they are the only ones who know where we should go,for me that is y Zuma is the president,the people did not have a voice,its a rebellion.some how we should try to bring everyone into debates,explain in sinple terms what nationalisation means for the man on the streets,bring the economists,labour,goverment and we all measure how our needs can be met,lets not go bak to the Mbeki era where there are few people smart enough to understand the economy,this affects us all,and it is not rocket science,explain home langusges,you’ll be suprised,
The universities should go to the people and put thier case there,large majority of south africans not educated then y should the debate be with intectuals only,but I agree the debate has been dying due to intolorence,ussually by people who do not have enough points to carry thier arguments,but change the formatt to suit everyone not just the few,this can be an oppotunity to involve rather than go bak to “elites”or”educated” era
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
Onkgopotse JJ Tabane is the political adviser to Cope's parliamentary leader. He writes in his personal capacity.
---------------------------------------------
Onkgopotse JJ Tabane is a Media and Communications Specialist who has become a public commentator on a wide range of socio political issues over the last decade.
He has cut his teeth in both Government and Private Sector as a top communicator winning awards such as the Government Communicator of the year in 2002 and holding senior positions such as Ministerial Spokesperson for various ministers, Head of Ministry of Environmental Affairs, Communications Advisor to the Chamber of Mines Communications Vice President and General Manager at South African Airways as well as Chief Executive of Graphicor and Simeka Communications. He has also held a senior corporate affairs Job at Top Electonic Company Altron where he was in Charge of the company’s Transformation Programme and Corporate Social Investment.
When COPE was formed in 2008 Tabane quit his Corporate Job to Join COPE as their Head of Communications leading up to the 2009 General election. Today amongst his many activities he is Political Advisor to COPE Parliamentary Leader Dr Mvume Dandala and occasional contributor to many publications. He has also served on various boards of directors including as a member of the Gauteng Tourism Authority, Johannesburg Tourism Authority and until recently chaired the board of the Indalo Yethu Environmental Campaign.
He is still a member of the Northwest University Council where he is serving his second term. JJ Tabane is widely known for his forthright manner of debate and fearless tackling of public commentary since his student days where he was SRC President and Vice President at the Universities of the North and Western Cape where he qualified in Law and Politics. He holds a BA,( UNIN), BPROC (UWC) and Masters in Political Economy (NMMU).
He is married to Lorraine Ditshedi Tabane and has two children, Oreabetse (3) and Resego (12).
I truly thought I was dreaming when I listened to Helen Zille explaining away her MEC's sexual indiscretion as none of our business, using the same mo...
Professor Sipho Seepe's recent article in the Sowetan that morals are not necessary for leadership in politics must rank as his poorest contribution t...
One of the most irksome tasks that many governments around the world loath and execute badly is how to deal with crisis communications in the face of ...
Loading ...
Just last weekend,this issues was raised by friends and I have just asked them to read your posting,thanks JJ,and hope real debates are going to start again amongst the poeple
(Report abuse)