JAN HOFMEYR responds to the outcome of ANC Youth League president Julius Malema’s hate speech trial.
While the South Gauteng High Court’s verdict in Julius Malema’s hate speech trial may have surprised many, the eventual polarising impact of a ruling either way was never in doubt. The extreme tone of public responses to its outcome thus far – elation and outrage, with very little in between – is telling because it not only underscores our high levels of social division, but also the extent to which ordinary citizens on both sides of the debate felt they had a vested interest in its outcome.
It is a trial that should never have been. Technically, the court was asked to pronounce on its interpretation of a provision which is intended to protect the dignity of all citizens. Yet, in practice any judgment was bound to be viewed as a mutually exclusive validation of the distinct traditions of the two parties. Inevitably the perception for some – and hence the reality – would be that judgment also amounts to a pronouncement on the legitimacy of deeply rooted emotive claims to dignity, apart from those generic rights linked to citizenship. In as far as its ability to forge social harmony is concerned, the court, and by extension the judiciary, was therefore ultimately set up for failure.
When questioning the wisdom of filing the case at all, the broader question also needs to be asked as to why Afriforum would have opted for this zero-sum strategy when surely more constructive resolutions were possible? A series of events over the past year suggest that Afriforum’s absolutist approach is not unique, and that it mirrors the rigid terms that have framed many other debates during the same period. The long list includes, but is not to limited to, recent excessive wage demands backed up by tacit threats of, and actual, violence; equally excessive increases in executive pay that defy reason when more restraint would have sown sensitivity and possibly even solidarity towards the growing number of unemployed; the splitting and re-racialisation of organised business at a juncture where the economy can least afford it; the no-tolerance attitude of the police that has resulted in at least one publicly televised killing of an innocent protestor; and, more recently, the reactionary response of several predominantly white organisations to suggestions by Archbishop Emeritus Tutu that white South Africans ought to contribute more financially towards undoing the injustices of apartheid.
While these responses may have diverse origins, they share an underlying tone of intransigence, which increasingly seems to gain the upper-hand in our national debates at the expense of inclusive and consensus-seeking processes. It is a discourse of suspicion and anger that only caters for winners and in which the cost of losing is too high to bear. As a result, stakeholders in opposing camps, across social and economic policy spectrums, are becoming increasingly combative. And for the same reason, the situation is becoming increasingly untenable.
Surely South Africans in all spheres could have done more to avert situations like this, where we constantly seem to be driven to the brink. Economic injustice, of course, represents our society’s most pronounced fault-line, but the origins and consequences of its deep structural roots cannot possibly be eradicated overnight. In the absence of quick-fix solutions, we need to find new ways of talking to each other, and to invest in existing institutions that hold the potential to expedite more inclusive forms of social transformation.
Against this backdrop, it is not unreasonable to argue for more urgency within government to empower the so-called Chapter 9 institutions in terms of their jurisdiction and resources. As institutions that have been tasked to protect the values of the Constitution, they have the potential to mitigate the potential impact of polarising court cases at a much lower level of administration. Yet the Asmal Report, which suggested far-reaching changes to their functioning, seems to be gathering dust in Parliament’s library.
Organised business and labour should work together to create jobs in ways that promote the longevity of businesses as well as the interests of workers. Too often it appears as if their bargaining processes are informed by sectional interest rather than by the greater, and more sustainable, economic good. The same could of course be said for unity within the ranks of business itself.
An unfortunate reality in societies as polarised as ours, is that topics of meaningful conversation are not conveyed directly between the appropriate people, but are instead ‘mediated’ almost exclusively by the media. We don’t seem to debate these issues enough around tables in towns and cities across the country, which makes it more critical for this sector to execute its mandate inclusively and with a heightened emphasis on quality as well as with sensitivity towards the kind of society in which we live.
It should, finally, also be incumbent upon civil society to ask itself whether its organisations are doing enough to create platforms where non-threatening conversations can take place that ultimately promote shared understanding and inclusive outcomes. This sector is known for its emphasis on deliberation, yet more attention ought to be paid to the way in which we deliberate as opposed to the number of hours spent doing so.
However, a growing realisation of the unsustainability of the status quo is taking root across the above-mentioned sectors. Increasingly, people seem to realise that, besides the genuine historical grounds, there are also pragmatic considerations that could threaten our prospects for a common future if not addressed with more urgency. As this article argues, we need a new way of talking, or as some have referred to it, a new national dialogue. While the outcome to the Malema hate-speech debacle has been discouraging, it should also serve to rally all of us across the social spectrum to prevent its recurrence. We can ill-afford not to.
Jan Hofmeyr heads the Policy and Analysis programme of the IJR. A version of this article first appeared on www.sabc.co.za.