“Where are the Suzmans, Slovos, Fischers, and Naudes of Today”- Input by Deputy Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Andries Nel at the Roundtable on Whiteness, Afrikaans, Afrikaners at the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA)
Ben Okri writes in A Way of Being Free that, “The worst realities of our age are manufactured realities. It is our task, as creative participants in the universe, to redream our world. The fact of possessing imagination means that everything can be redreamed. Each reality can have its alternative possibilities. Human beings are blessed with the necessity of transformation.”
I have been asked to answer the question: “Where are the Suzmans, Slovos, Fischers and Naudes of today?”
Often asking the right question is as, if not more, important than getting the right answer.
Helen Suzman, Joe Slovo, Bram Fischer and Beyers Naude no doubt were all, albeit in very different ways, “creative participants in the universe” and were “blessed with the necessity of transformation.”
But is this the right question to be asking? What if in fact is being asked?
Suzman, Slovo, Fischer and Naude are an interesting choice on which to frame the question.
Fischer was born in 1908, Naude in 1915, Suzman in 1917, Slovo in 1926. They experienced the consolidation of colonialism of a special type in the context of the global rise and consolidation of the nation state.
All were white. One was a woman. Suzman and Slovo were born into Jewish families, Fisher and Naudé into Christian families. Suzman attended a convent school.
Suzman and Slovo were born Lithuanian immigrants. Today they would be called refugees.
Suzman and Slovo were English speaking, Fisher and Naude Afrikaans speaking.
Fischer’s father was Judge President of the Orange Free State, his grandfather Prime Minister of the Orange River Colony. Naudé’s father was a dominee and a founder member of the Afrikaner Broederbond. Slovo left school at 15 to work and studied law after WWII on an ex-serviceman’s scholarship. #FeesFellForSlovo.
All of them benefitted, in different ways, from the system they opposed.
Suzman was a liberal who believed in parliamentary opposition. Naudée a radical Christian who was banned. Fisher and Slovo were leaders of the Communist Party and the ANC who engaged in armed struggle against apartheid. They were arrested, imprisoned or exiled.
They were all leaders, in different ways. But this begs the question:
Were they leaders of the white community? Were they leaders in the white community? Were they white individuals whose beliefs led them to oppose injustice, albeit in very different ways?
Their lives demonstrate that all people have multiple identities. This reality is accentuated in South Africa by our history and our circumstances.
They demonstrate that leaders are shaped by their societies much as their societies are also shaped by the individual and collective action.
The question, where are the Suzmans, Slovos, Fischers and Naudes of today can, I believe, only be addressed in relation to the circumstances and the challenges of today.
Central to these challenges are poverty, inequality and unemployment and the racial form that they take.
Almost 45 years ago, Rick Turner argued in The Eye of the Needle, that:
“South Africa, everyone agrees, is a profoundly unequal society. It is marked by inequality of power, of wealth, of access to the means for acquiring power and/or wealth, of education, and of status.
“This much is agreed upon. Disagreement arises, however, when the causes of this situation are sought. Most whites see these inequalities as being the result of the unequal contribution made by the various ethnic groups. The whites have "brought civilization, developed industry, etc., and it is only natural that they should take the lion's share. The blacks have not really contributed, either because they are biologically inferior, or because they are culturally inferior. There is disagreement as to whether and when this cultural gap can be bridged, but there is wide agreement that it existed in the first place and is at the origin of today's inequalities. Most blacks, on the other hand, see these inequalities as being largely the result of exploitation and of inequality of opportunity.
"In South Africa the major cause of conflict is the unequal distribution of wealth. This unequal distribution coincides almost exactly with color or race differences, and somewhat more roughly, with cultural differences.
"Neither cultural nor racial differences are in themselves inherently causes of social conflict, although they can, through ignorance and prejudice, become causes of conflict.
"In South Africa, this basic cause of social conflict and tension is overlaid by race and cultural prejudice in a potent mixture. Prejudice can be cured by education. Contradiction of interest cannot.
"However, if the wealth gap is done away with, there will no longer be any inherent reason for conflict. Cultural or racial groups can and do co-exist when they are not also divided by different economic interests.
"The maintenance of their cultural identity by white South Africans is a reasonable wish, but it is not dependent on their maintenance of economic privilege, and should not be confused with this.
"The whites are, in an important sense, themselves victims of the very system that they fight to preserve. For in becoming racialists and exploiters they become closed off to important areas of human experience.
"We have already discussed in general terms what is meant by the injunction ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ To be yourself, you must love your neighbor. The question is, what do you become if you fear and hate your neighbor?
"The essential thing that white South Africans lose is openness to the future and to other people.
"We must attack racism, but we must also attack the unquestioned acceptance of material values underlying racism. We must try to show to all those who accept the dominant values how much they lose in this society and how much they could gain in a good society. ‘Self-interest’ and ‘material interest’ are not the same. In fact, they are often incompatible."
The struggle to which the Suzmans, Slovos, Fischers and Naudes contributed has created the conditions to, in Ben Okri’s words, realize “alternative possibilities.”
The latest incarnation of our attempt to “redream” our society in line with the “necessity of transformation” spelled out in our Constitution is encapsulated in the National Development Plan.
The NDP envisions a South Africa where everyone feels free yet bounded to others; where everyone embraces their full potential, a country where opportunity is determined not by birth, but by ability, education and hard work.
Realising such a society will require transformation of the economy in ways that benefit all South Africans as well as focused efforts to build the country's capabilities.
Young people deserve better educational and economic opportunities, and focused efforts are required to eliminate gender inequality. Levels of frustration and impatience are rising. Time is of the essence.
Achieving social cohesion is central to the NDP. It makes the point strongly that deracialising ownership and control of the economy without reducing poverty and inequality, transformation will be superficial. Conversely, if poverty and inequality are reduced without demonstrably changed ownership patterns, the country’s progress will be turbulent and tenous.
Progress over the next two decades will means doing things differently. The NDP sets out six interlinked priorities:
First, uniting all South Africans around a common programme to achieve prosperity and equity.
Second, promoting active citizenry to strengthen development, democracy and accountability.
Third, bringing about faster economic growth, higher investment and greater labour absorption.
Fourth, focusing on key capabilities of people and the state. Fifth, building a capable and developmental state.
Sixth, encouraging strong leadership throughout society to work together to solve problems.
The successful implementation of the NDP requires strong leadership from, and within, government, business, labour and civil society.
Leaders throughout society are required to work together, to break with the tendecy to advocate positions that promote narrow, short-term interests at the expense of a broader, long-term agenda.
I would argue that this is where the Suzmans, Slovos, Fischers and Naudés of today must be found and be encouraged to emerge. To make a contribution as citizens, citizens with the benefit of accumulated advantages, but not as Messiahs.
We need partnerships across society working together towards a common purpose. We need to overcome the high levels of mistrust between major social partners.
Leaders in government must shoulder a large share of responsibility for implementing the National Development Plan, whilst working with others in society to do so.
This means being prepared to take difficult decisions and trade-offs and persuading society of the correctness of these decisions. This requires communicating honestly and sincerely. It also requires the moral authority and legitimacy to do so.
The state sets an example for society. If corruption is seen as acceptable in government, it will affect the way society conducts itself, and undermine the moral authority of the state. This makes combatting corruption a priority for all leaders.
Successful implementation of the NDP will also requires leadership in the private sector. The private sector must invest in productive capacity. We need leaders that understand that, while the profit motive drives business, companies cannot grow unless employment and income levels are rising.
The long-term interests of all businesses require the country to grow faster and have more people employed. It is also in the interests of business that the level of inequality be reduced. Inequality fuels mistrust and tension. It also raises the cost of doing business, skews market structure and ultimately limits growth opportunities. Obscenely generous executive remuneration does little to foster a sense of inclusivity and shared benefit in the fruits of development.
Union leadership is also crucial. Historically trade union leaders have understood that issues affecting their members do not stop at the factory gate and have played a role in politics.
Gains by union members must be sustainable in the long term. To achieve this, productivity and employment have to rise continuously. Outcomes determined in bargaining processes must not close the door for new entrants to the workplace.
Leadership is require to ensure that unions share responsibility for the quality of services delivered, for improving the performance of government, and for fighting corruption and inefficiency.
Leadership in civil society forms an integral part of a vibrant democracy that involves people in their own development. Leaders are responsible for ensuring that that criticism and protest are conducted with dignity and maturity.
In the past few months we have seen through the student movement the emergence of a generation, in the sense that the term has been used historically in the liberation movement. We must encourage this trend and engage in an inter-generational dialogue.
In 1996, during a debate in the National Assembly marking the handing over of the TRC report I raised the following issues, which I believe are still relevant:
Vandag moet ons onsself afvra of ons ons kinders en kleinkinders wil verdoem tot ‘n eindelose herhaling van die verdeeldheid en die konflikte van die verlede, en indien ons antwoord nee is, moet ons onsself die volgende vrae afvra.
Eerstens, wat doen ons om die geweldige ongelykhede in ons samelewing aan te spreek?
Vir solank as wat sommige tale uitgespreek word met aksente van armoede, hongersnood en siekte en terwyl infleksies van gemaksugtige selfsug aan ander kleef, sal ons mekaar nooit behoorlik kan hoor nie.
Vir solank as wat die skakerings van die kleur van ons vel nie net strale van die Afrika-son waaronder ons gemeenskaplike lotsbestemming lê, weerkaats nie maar ook die skrille kontraste in ons rykdom en welvaart sal dit pynlik wees om mekaar te aanskou.
Vir solank as wat daar ‘n ryk wit nasie en ‘n arm swart nasie is, sal ons oë skaam bly om mekaar as gelykes te aanskou, as broers en suster en medeburgers van een nasie.
Tweedens, wat doen ons om dit moontlik te maak vir die jeug en veral die jong wit Suid-Afrikaners om die konflikte van die verlede te verstaan en te verwerk?
Vir solank as wat hul ouers en hul ouers se leiers swyg, sal jong wit Suid-Afrikaners wonder wat dit nou eintelik is wat deur regstellende optrede reggestel moet word en sal die pyn en frustrasie wat eie is aan die onkunde hulle verhoed om te sien dat hulle die geslag in ons geskiedenis is wat die blinkste toekoms voor hulle het, vry om hul menslike potensiaal ten volle te ontwikkel, vry van die haat en verdeeldheid van die verlede.
Vir solank as wat hulle ouers swyg, sal hulle nie verstaan dat wat op hulle rus nie die morele blaam vir die onreg en sonde van apartheid is nie maar die verantwoordelikheid om die voorregte wat apartheid vir hulle meegebring het in te span om ‘n beter lewe vir almal te skep.
Ek wil vandag die voorspelling waag dat die woede en die verwyt wat die Duitse jeug na die Tweede Wêrldoorlog teenoor die stilswye van ouers en grootouers gevoel het ons in veelvoude van tien sal besoek as ons hierdie vraagstuk nie positief aanspreek nie.
Derdens, wat doen ons om te verseker dat die kulturele, godsdiens- en taaldiversiteit waarmee ons geseën is ons nader aan mekaar bring en nie die verdeeldheid van die verlede laat voortleef nie?
