Kameraad Mhambi

Beebop, who often comments on this blog has regularly put the question to me, why don’t whities stop whining and do something positive?

That is a very good question.

Last Sunday Esebius Mackaiser took on this theme, after a debate between Antjie Krog and Rian Malan.

Their respective takes on the phenomenology of whiteness differ sharply. In the one corner there is Malan, who articulates a lived reality of a pale citizen who feels that his entitlement to speak has been obliterated by virtue of his pale skin. His opponent, Krog, speaks to a white reality that is one of continued privilege, thereby challenging the assumption of lost power inherent in the moaning and groaning of the Malan-types.

Yet, upon reflection, these two narratives are equally tragic and unhealthy. Whiteness has become trapped between victimhood and self-flagellation. This stops white South Africans from fully integrating into democratic South Africa in a way that retains their agency fully, sans Krog, but at the same time acknowledges their continued privilege, sans Malan. We need a white consciousness that transcends the embarrassing Krog-like yearning to be black – as if becoming the bantu that you had formerly oppressed is the ultimate mark of atonement. On the other hand, the Malan-like moaning festival needs to be exposed as less an expression of a profound truth about loss of citizenship than – to the shock and horror of too many whites, still – the democratisation of public space.

Esebius goes on the debunk two examples Malan used to show that whites cant partake in public debate. Namely himself and Van Zyl Slabbert (with Slabbert’s report on the South African voting system).

First, it is not just white commentators who are often not heard; black ones are ignored too. This has nothing to do with Malan’s whiteness, but everything to do with dishonest state machinery that tries to evade tough criticism from an active citizenry.

He continues:

Second, the Slabbert report has been shelved purely because of political calculations about the ANC’s interest in agreeing to replace the party-list, proportional representation system with some mixture of proportional representation and a constituency-based model. Even if that report was written by a black ANC sympathiser, it would still not have seen the light of day. Race is the wrong prism through which to see why Slabbert’s report gathered dust.

Esebius is right I think on the Slabbert voting report case. The rejection of Slabbert was not about race. It was about ANC real politic.

But he does not dwell on an earlier time when Slabbert was rejected by Mbeki. And that, Slabbert firmly believed, was because of his race.

R W Johnston recounts how much the relationship with Mbeki meant to Slabbert:

There is no doubt that Slabbert placed enormous store on his relationship with Mbeki — he was so grateful for his support on one occasion that he exclaimed: “I would die for that bugger.”

As I know from many conversations with Slabbert, he had high hopes that this relationship would ultimately lead him to playing a significant role in making sure the new dispensation would work.

“When the ANC take over”, he told me, “they’re going to need all the help they can get. And it’s vital for all of us that they succeed because only that way can the country succeed.”

Those hopes were spectacularly dashed by Mbeki.

But one example – that of Slabbert – is clearly not enough, and besides – Mbeki who was a known racist – is gone.

Esebius then digs up an example himself. A much better one.

This is not to deny dangerous undercurrents among the intolerant within the political arena. It is shamefully true, for example, that when the ANC Youth League responds to deputy transport minister Jeremy Cronin not by engaging his brilliant polemic on nationalisation but by dismissing him as a white racist, they are affirming Malan’s fears. But Malan exaggerates these pockets of intolerance.

Is it exaggerated?

I don’t think so and here’s the rub – its just a simple ‘white black’ thing either. The Malema camp of the ANC has made ample noises stressing the undesirability of having ministers that are not “African”.

And, besides Cronin, if one looks at the past year or so one would struggle to find a single ANC, Cosatu, SACP senior official or government minister that is not “African” that have spoken out on anything besides anodyne policy.

Why not?

My hunch is that they are politically astute. Any significant participation of them in the debates of the day, will be abused in the battle between the conservatives and the progressives about the future of the ANC.

In practice, whites coloureds and Indians are all but self censored less they strengthen Malema’s hand.

Related deployments:

1. Van Zyl Slabbert dies – some quotes, comments and thoughts