Readers will recall that last week I took to task the invocation of ‘context' by Johnny Steinberg in order to ‘understand' and ‘situate' the moral failures of political leaders like Thabo Mbeki. Legacy debates will not go out of fashion anytime soon and so it is worth pushing the dialectic a little bit further.
Steinberg responds by claiming that " ... if Mr McKaiser's argument is taken to its logical conclusion, we should never again invoke the humiliation of Versailles lest we excuse Adolf Hitler. Nor dare we mention land hunger as a source of grievance in Zimbabwe lest we give Robert Mugabe succour. We are to still our questions, bury our curiosity and butcher our intellects in order that we may condemn."
Nonsense. But interesting nonsense - a colourful example of a straw man that I could trot out for beginner logic students to play with. In this rejoinder, Steinberg gives examples with which I certainly would agree. Of course one can point out multiple sources of any political or socio-economic problem. That is indeed the point of intellectually curious social science research that aims to offer us a critical understanding of the world we live in. Nothing in my criticism of Steinberg's use of ‘context' to understand Thabo Mbeki's legacy is incompatible with this. It is not rocket science to accept that there can be multiple sources of explanation for any issue.
What Steinberg in fact did, but tries to fudge by pretending he was engaging in subtle intellectual pursuit that I missed because perhaps I was sneezing while reading him, was to poorly distinguish between the contextual facts within which Mbeki had acted as a political animal and the individual moral and political blame that can properly be attributed to Mbeki. Mbeki simply chose AIDS denialism - period. History will and should rightly hold him morally responsible.
The irony of this exchange between Steinberg and myself was brought to my attention by a couple of readers who pointed me to an excellent review by Steinberg of Didier Fassin's "When bodies remember: Experiences and Politics of AIDS in South Africa". Steinberg rather pointedly - and rightly - criticises the excessive attempt on the part of Fassin to understand Mbeki. He calls this "an anthropology of low expectations" and concludes by urging that "we should beware generous anthropologies of African mistakes." Yet, fast forward to late 2009, and Steinberg himself is engaging in a low-expectation anthropology of African mistakes. It is important for researchers and writers to journey into the headspace and social landscape of a subject with critical distance. This does not mean that we must lack empathy. Nor that we should never exonerate someone or diminish the degree of responsibility we attribute to them. Mbeki's ‘leadership' on HIV/AIDS, however, is not such a case in point.
The bigger debate is ultimately one about structuralism's fate. Our individual beliefs, attitudes, personalities and behavioural patterns are strongly influenced by social, economic, political, familial and other structures into which we are born and within which we become adults. We cannot pretend to live in solitary universes as individuals. These social facts mean that individuals can only be fully understood if the structures within which they were and are shaped are understood equally well. This is the point of much social science. And it is a worthwhile and compelling enterprise.
What too many social scientists get wrong - and also biographers whose works are derivative of empirical psychology and sociology - is to perpetuate two analytic mistakes. The first is a failure to recognise that structures are constituted by persons with flesh and blood and brains and bodies - human beings. Instead, structures are anthropomorphised. Human traits are casually attributed to inanimate things. Then, in a jump of logic, we can, for example, claim that it is not a human being who is racist, but an (inanimate) ‘system' or ‘institution' that is racist, as if systems and institutions are not constituted by persons who take decisions that we can attribute to them as persons.
The fetishishing of structures allow leaders to be given convenient space to escape full responsibility for actions and decisions. Structures influence who and what are. But they do not determine what we do. We are capable of acting differently to how we in fact act. That is why attributions of praise and blame in the game of morality makes sense- even in the face of facts about the context within which we act.
The second confusion is a failure to distinguish between empiricism and normativity. Of course empirical projects are hugely intellectually interesting. New data and facts are the lifeblood of knowledge production. But normative questions - questions about how we ought to behave as opposed to how we actually behave - are equally important. If not, we will never bother to strive towards norms of moral excellence but simply replicate past mistakes well-chronicled in empirical social science works.
Ultimately, our criticism of Thabo Mbeki is a normative one. We take his intelligence seriously enough to blame him for failing to transcend the structures into which he was born. He could have and should have acted other than how he in fact acted as president of South Africa. A softer, later-Steinberg analysis of Mbeki's legacy perpetuates a condescending anthropology of low expectations, one the earlier-Steinberg would have rightly disapproved of.
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=154827&sn=Detail
Friday, December 18, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Only a black-led party has a hope of taking on the ANC
THE much-punted possible merger between the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Congress of the People (COPE) will succeed only if two fundamental issues are successfully negotiated. The one is leadership — who should be the face of the merged party? The other is ideological — should the merger continue in the DA’s libertarian vein or carve out a more progressive, social justice foundation?
The leadership question is easier to resolve — in theory. A lofty desire to make the world a better place is never the sole source of motivation for entering politics. Politics is ultimately about gaining power. Both the DA and COPE presumably desire at some point actually to govern SA. A crafty mixture of principle and pragmatism is needed to get there. This means accepting that the South African electorate would vote only a black-led party into power in the foreseeable future. Whether this is good or bad is neither here nor there. It is a fact. The implication is that a merger between the DA and COPE must have a black face.
This may be a bitter pill to swallow for some of the current DA leadership. After all, they are the official opposition with a much larger support base than COPE. However, they would be naive to negotiate a merger with COPE solely on the basis of this year’s election results. They must take account of likely patterns of voter behaviour in the future. But once you venture into that kind of crystal ball gazing — which itself, of course, requires some analysis of past voter behaviour — one inevitably faces the truth that racialism remains an important strand in voter decision-making. This means that if the senior leadership within the DA really cares about maximising the chances of a merger being bigger and better than both the DA and COPE, they must accept the strategic necessity of a black-led merger.
Fortunately — if reliable political sources close to the action are to be believed — most senior leaders within the DA understand this, including the parliamentary leader, Athol Trollip. It is not so clear that DA leader Helen Zille understands or accepts this. One cannot blame her. She has done well to keep the DA on an upward trajectory in its post-Leon phase and no doubt she would therefore want to cling to the personal power and career success that she has amassed.
But unless she, and other like-minded leaders close to her, can put the goal of maximising party success at the top of political priorities, a merger will be doomed. The white-led DA has reached a glass ceiling. A black-led merger presents the only chance of further growth.
Of course, even if it is accepted that a black leadership is important for strategic reasons, complications will remain. Who, exactly, among black leaders within both the DA and COPE could lead a merged party? Certainly not Mvume Dandala or Mosiuoa Lekota . Dandala has been a shoddy parliamentary leader for COPE. He should exit the political stage. Lekota, in his turn, has failed to build COPE structures on the ground and has lost all political fizz over the past months.
The only serious candidate within COPE for leading a merged party is Mbhazima Shilowa . Even then, Shilowa does not exactly have gigantic gravitas and needs to become a much better and more charismatic leader. If he were to lead a merger, a team of communications experts and political consultants would be a necessary part of the toolkit.
A black leader from within the DA ranks would be preferable, as that would mitigate against legitimate fears among the DA leadership that COPE stands to gain more than the DA from a merged opposition. The problem, of course, is that the DA has been shoddy at successfully nurturing or attracting senior black leadership.
How all this plays out will determine the success of a new outfit. For the sake of SA, it is necessary that the ruling party finally be given a serious run for its liberation money. Only a black-led merger can fulfil that role.
On the ideological front there may be even deeper disagreement. The DA has already made it clear it will merge only with parties that are willing to buy into its mantra of an open, equal-opportunity society for all.
Of course, that phrase sounds rather inviting but it is, in the first instance, vague and uninformative.
With deeper knowledge of the DA’s character, however, we can translate the notion of an “open, equal opportunities society for all” into simpler English. What it really means is that formal equality, such as equal treatment of all persons with no regards to cumbersome things such as social histories, are much more important than substantive equality. It means social justice interventions in the sociopolitical life of the country, which demand unequal treatment in order to ensure equitable outcomes and adequate redress of past, systemic inequalities, should be viewed with scepticism. This cannot be stated baldly and so Zille has to resort to euphemistic political phrases — but the libertarian undertones fool no one.
It is perfectly acceptable for any political party to be centre-right in its economic or social thinking. Political pluralism is not to be scoffed at. But such an ideological outlook will not see the light of day in SA in our lifetime. It is a recipe for remaining in the opposition benches. And, in fact, rightly so — it is callous to be ahistorical in crafting an ideological foundation for a country.
You must take account of the fact that Sipho Soap cannot pull himself up by his bootstraps because he does not have bootstraps. It is easy for his Caucasian competitor, Joe Soap, to do so — after all, Joe was born with bootstraps on his feet courtesy of the apartheid legacy of skewed, racially distributed economic and social goods.
The point is simple. A merged opposition would have to adopt a different tone and political identity from what some within the DA leadership would be comfortable with. That will prove the greatest stumbling block in creating a successful opposition to the African National Congress. It does not help that COPE still has no clear ideological foundation, let alone specific policies that flow from such a foundation. So it has little to bring to the negotiating table. When it does hastily put something together, it is to be hoped social justice principles will prevail and that all parties to the negotiation of a merged opposition can accept this alternative character for an opposition merger.
Perhaps most importantly, these two issues — who should be the face of the merger and what should be the character of the merger — should be discussed with detailed input from DA and COPE members and supporters to ensure legitimacy and grassroots buy-in. For the sake of defeating one-party domination, we should all hope an opposition merger is successfully negotiated before the next set of parliamentary elections.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=89650
The leadership question is easier to resolve — in theory. A lofty desire to make the world a better place is never the sole source of motivation for entering politics. Politics is ultimately about gaining power. Both the DA and COPE presumably desire at some point actually to govern SA. A crafty mixture of principle and pragmatism is needed to get there. This means accepting that the South African electorate would vote only a black-led party into power in the foreseeable future. Whether this is good or bad is neither here nor there. It is a fact. The implication is that a merger between the DA and COPE must have a black face.
This may be a bitter pill to swallow for some of the current DA leadership. After all, they are the official opposition with a much larger support base than COPE. However, they would be naive to negotiate a merger with COPE solely on the basis of this year’s election results. They must take account of likely patterns of voter behaviour in the future. But once you venture into that kind of crystal ball gazing — which itself, of course, requires some analysis of past voter behaviour — one inevitably faces the truth that racialism remains an important strand in voter decision-making. This means that if the senior leadership within the DA really cares about maximising the chances of a merger being bigger and better than both the DA and COPE, they must accept the strategic necessity of a black-led merger.
Fortunately — if reliable political sources close to the action are to be believed — most senior leaders within the DA understand this, including the parliamentary leader, Athol Trollip. It is not so clear that DA leader Helen Zille understands or accepts this. One cannot blame her. She has done well to keep the DA on an upward trajectory in its post-Leon phase and no doubt she would therefore want to cling to the personal power and career success that she has amassed.
But unless she, and other like-minded leaders close to her, can put the goal of maximising party success at the top of political priorities, a merger will be doomed. The white-led DA has reached a glass ceiling. A black-led merger presents the only chance of further growth.
Of course, even if it is accepted that a black leadership is important for strategic reasons, complications will remain. Who, exactly, among black leaders within both the DA and COPE could lead a merged party? Certainly not Mvume Dandala or Mosiuoa Lekota . Dandala has been a shoddy parliamentary leader for COPE. He should exit the political stage. Lekota, in his turn, has failed to build COPE structures on the ground and has lost all political fizz over the past months.
The only serious candidate within COPE for leading a merged party is Mbhazima Shilowa . Even then, Shilowa does not exactly have gigantic gravitas and needs to become a much better and more charismatic leader. If he were to lead a merger, a team of communications experts and political consultants would be a necessary part of the toolkit.
A black leader from within the DA ranks would be preferable, as that would mitigate against legitimate fears among the DA leadership that COPE stands to gain more than the DA from a merged opposition. The problem, of course, is that the DA has been shoddy at successfully nurturing or attracting senior black leadership.
How all this plays out will determine the success of a new outfit. For the sake of SA, it is necessary that the ruling party finally be given a serious run for its liberation money. Only a black-led merger can fulfil that role.
On the ideological front there may be even deeper disagreement. The DA has already made it clear it will merge only with parties that are willing to buy into its mantra of an open, equal-opportunity society for all.
Of course, that phrase sounds rather inviting but it is, in the first instance, vague and uninformative.
With deeper knowledge of the DA’s character, however, we can translate the notion of an “open, equal opportunities society for all” into simpler English. What it really means is that formal equality, such as equal treatment of all persons with no regards to cumbersome things such as social histories, are much more important than substantive equality. It means social justice interventions in the sociopolitical life of the country, which demand unequal treatment in order to ensure equitable outcomes and adequate redress of past, systemic inequalities, should be viewed with scepticism. This cannot be stated baldly and so Zille has to resort to euphemistic political phrases — but the libertarian undertones fool no one.
It is perfectly acceptable for any political party to be centre-right in its economic or social thinking. Political pluralism is not to be scoffed at. But such an ideological outlook will not see the light of day in SA in our lifetime. It is a recipe for remaining in the opposition benches. And, in fact, rightly so — it is callous to be ahistorical in crafting an ideological foundation for a country.
You must take account of the fact that Sipho Soap cannot pull himself up by his bootstraps because he does not have bootstraps. It is easy for his Caucasian competitor, Joe Soap, to do so — after all, Joe was born with bootstraps on his feet courtesy of the apartheid legacy of skewed, racially distributed economic and social goods.
The point is simple. A merged opposition would have to adopt a different tone and political identity from what some within the DA leadership would be comfortable with. That will prove the greatest stumbling block in creating a successful opposition to the African National Congress. It does not help that COPE still has no clear ideological foundation, let alone specific policies that flow from such a foundation. So it has little to bring to the negotiating table. When it does hastily put something together, it is to be hoped social justice principles will prevail and that all parties to the negotiation of a merged opposition can accept this alternative character for an opposition merger.
Perhaps most importantly, these two issues — who should be the face of the merger and what should be the character of the merger — should be discussed with detailed input from DA and COPE members and supporters to ensure legitimacy and grassroots buy-in. For the sake of defeating one-party domination, we should all hope an opposition merger is successfully negotiated before the next set of parliamentary elections.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=89650
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
