Talk about race

by Editor · September 9, 2009

After reportedly having rejected a debate on race within the African National Congress (ANC) last month, President Jacob Zuma must tell the nation exactly how he proposes to work towards the non-racial society which he seeks, as do surely all South Africans of good will.

It seems that Mr Zuma�s proscription of the race debate was in reaction to statements by ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, who questioned the lack of appointment of African blacks to economic portfolios. Such racial talk evidently is contrary to what Mr Zuma sees as the ANC�s culture of non-racialism. But closing the debate will not create a non-racial society, in as far as that ideal is at all attainable.

Racial tension remains a defining characteristic of South African society. The heady Rainbow Nation years under President Nelson Mandela projected not a new and fully formed reality, but the bedrock of an ideal. In some areas of social life, that ideal is being realised � but as a nation, we are far from completing the transformation from a racially charged society to one of harmony.

Recent events bring into focus how far South Africa has to go to accomplish the transformation.

Judge John Hlope, who aspires to serve on the Constitutional Court and to lead it one day, allegedly said that he would refuse to shake a white man�s hand, in so doing allegedly referring to outgoing Chief Justice Pius Langa, a black man. Judge Hlope denies having made such statements. Nevertheless, some among his sympathisers have defended the alleged statements.

Many white, Coloured and Indian people whose anti-apartheid credentials and commitment to justice in South Africa are beyond reproach are now being discounted on account of their race. In many of these instances, it could be argued, race is invoked in a bid to jockey for positions of power. If so, it is necessary to investigate how this will impact on the ways in which South Africans can relate to one another.

Questions of race remain not only at the centre, but are openly and sometimes aggressively stated. These should not be suppressed, even if they are uncomfortable to many, but be part of the national conversation.

The case of a white South African, Brandon Huntley, being granted asylum in Canada on grounds of racial discrimination (by criminals, not the state!), and the support he has received from many whites, reflects a lack of empathy with the conditions in which the great majority of black South Africans exist. Far from whites being singled out for attacks by criminals because of their race, township residents are at much greater risk of falling victim to crime, with even greater brutality.

Mr Huntley�s claim of racial persecution is at best crudely ignorant. Those who read racism into his assertion have a point which is difficult to refute.

It has become common for some politicians to respond to their critics by accusing them of opposing transformation and being �counter-revolutionary�, or of acting in the interest of whites. Such accusations betray a regrettable mindset which proposes that transformation implies the transfer of power, influence, position and wealth from one race group to another. This would be akin to reverse-apartheid, and serves to harden white intransigence.

The real transformation of South Africa, the true revolution, involves the eradication not of racial consciousness but of racial prejudice, chauvinism and domination. This is what Mr Zuma means by non-racialism. We have a long way yet to get there.

Not silence, but dialogue � including vigorous debate � will bring us closer to that goal.