On Warlords and democrats

When Graham Brady, the Conservative Party's Europe spokesperson, quit the front bench of the Party last week in protest at policies adopted by the Tory leader, David Cameron, I received an email that rhetorically asked: “Who are the MPs for Khutsong, and why have they not resigned yet?”

Of course, Mr Brady did not resign from the UK Parliament – merely from the front benches of Parliament. The MP’s for Khutsong would have had to resign as cabinet Minister or Chief Whip to have acted in a comparably manner than Mr. Brady.

Nevertheless, the implicit question remains: why do South African politicians never resign any position of power as a matter of principle. Why did no ANC cabinet ministers resign, for example, about the HIV/AIDS fiasco six years ago or when Jacob Zuma was fired or when South Africa decided to support Robert Mugabe?

There are several answers to this question. One is that our MP’s are so wedded to their political parties that they would never speak against their own – a bit of the Hansie Cronje syndrome.

A second reason is that MPs are not directly elected in constituencies and are therefore beholden to party bosses. If they resign in a fuss from cabinet, they will soon be kicked out of the National Assembly as well. Before they know it they will be redeployed as South Africa’s ambassador to Tjikitjikistan. In Britain, if you resign a cabinet post you go back to being an ordinary MP, but you retain some independence because the party cannot kick you out of Parliament – only your constituents can.

Having a constituency system also has other advantages. MPs who actually serve a constituency, must try and please their constituents and will therefore generally be far more responsive to the needs of the electorate than MPs selected by party bosses. Given this obvious advantage, one has to ask: Why is it that the ANC does not want to bring back some form of the constituency system?

The traditional argument is that the party bosses (i.e. Thabo Mbeki and Co) do not want to lose their power over the MPs. If one has a list system of proportional representation, the party and not the electorate decides who becomes MPs.

But recently some ANC people whispered into my ear that there is another reason for sticking to the list system. There is a real fear, according to my source, that independent constituency MPs will become a force onto themselves and would act like Warlords. This would then eventually destroy the ANC.

According to this view, all that holds the various factions of the ANC together and the only moderating force on the ANC is the Central Party structures. If one devolved matters to individual constituencies, demagogues and anti-democratic forces will take over. Without the instructions from head quarters, there would be no more gay rights and no more capitalism. And there would be far more renaming upheavals and other forms of populist politics. Think an ANC version of George Galloway!

These musings prompted another friend to ask: But what happens when the Warlords take over head office? My answer: we will have to wait until December to see!

Racial solidarity of the worst kind

The Mail & Guardian says that Judge Siraj Desai has been reported to the JSC by the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) chairperson in Gauteng, Thami ka Plaatjie, who claimed Desai did not have the "impeccable character" needed in a judge. Desai is embroiled in a defamation action against Oasis, the company who had paid Judge President John Hlophe up to R500 000 for "out of pocket expenses" after which Hlophe miraculously gave permission to Oasis to sue Desai.

Plaatjie denied that his complaint was part of an Africanist campaign against Desai. "All judges are open to scrutiny by the public. This is not witch-hunting. The same scrutiny that the judge president is subjected to, surely other people should face the same scrutiny?" Plaatjie said.

For his part, Desai said: "A very dirty war is being waged against me. I shall defend myself at each phase at it comes up."

Judge Desai is no angel and has a tendency to shoot from the hip, but it is difficult not to agree with him about the sinister motives of Mr. Plaatjie in this matter. This is an obvious manifestation of the worst kind of racial solidarity. Just because Judge Hlophe is black "African" and judge Desai is black from Indian descent, some among us seem to think that Judge Hlophe must be protected and defended - no matter what he might have done.

But why defend the indefensible? O dear, it must be because Mr. Plaatjie has been afflicted by the Hansie Cronje syndrome. Who cares if the person is a deeply flawed human being enveloped in the stench of corruption? Who cares if he is so self-centered and self-righteous that he would be prepared to destroy the judicial system rather than do the honourable thing and resign? Just because he is of the same race, the man shall be defended.

Mr. Plaatjie is a representative of the PAC, an organisation that is supposed to be steeped in the values of Black Consciousness. Sadly, this kind of racial solidarity seems to fly in the face of everything Steve Biko stood for.

It is true that many white people show solidarity with members of their own race because the deeply ingrained racism of our culture allows them instinctively to trust and defend others who are like them. It's an attitude that is often unspoken but that suggests: "He is white so he could not possibly have done something wrong."

I suspect, though, that given the power that racism still exert in our society, many black people who show racial solidarity do so in response to and as a defense against white racism and white power. The unspoken rule here could be: "If white people criticize black people we have to defend them because we really are defending all black people against prejudice."

It is a bit foolhardy for me to say this as a white person, but I think that this attitude is unwise and that the knee-jerk defense of even the most ethically challenged person flies in the face of what Steve Biko would have wanted. By responding to criticism of a black person in a defensive manner - no matter what that person might have done - one is according power to the white racists against whom one is railing. They still dictate one's actions and that means ones mind is not free and one is still shackled to "white think".

It is only when we move away from our habits of racial solidarity that we - white and black - can really liberate ourselves from the racist past. It is a pity that a person like Mr. Plaatjie - who really should know better - seems imprisoned by a white racist discourse without even realising it.