While the learners of rich parents attending the better schools were probably assisted and while their parents probably bought their own textbooks, those who really need the textbooks are having their education sabotaged by people who could not care less. Surely this is far more obscene than one painting could ever be?

Politicians with their disgustingly large ego’s (often far larger, it seems, than their sense of pride in who they are and in their country or their sense of responsibility as elected servants of the people) and their small tolerance level for hard work have overseen this mess, while enjoying the perks of the Ministerial Handbook and while feeling important about being politicians whose dignity the rest of us are supposed to respect. Stuff the dignity of the poor! Stuff the dignity of the school children being denied a proper education! Let’s rather get into a blue light convoy and drive around Limpopo to show how important we are and to demand respect and to insists that OUR dignity be respected!

Bureaucrats have been playing Tetris on their computers, filing their nails or scheming to land more government tenders by corrupt means (or whatever those bureaucrats do instead of doing their jobs), while indecently neglecting the interests of school children who have been forced to go to school without access to textbooks.

It took Section 27, an NGO engaged in promoting social and economic rights, to approach the North Gauteng High Court to do something about this disgrace. That is why last week Judge Kollapen ordered the delivery of textbooks to schools in Limpopo and the implementation of a catch-up plan for Grade 10 learners. Judge Kollapen ordered the DBE and the Department to deliver textbooks to all schools in Limpopo by no later than 15 June 2012.

He further ordered that a catch-up plan must be formulated and a copy lodged with the court and the applicants by 8 June 2012. The catch-up plan must identify gaps in curricula and the extent to which the quality of teaching and learning has been prejudiced by the lack of textbooks. The Court ordered the Department to indicate what remedial measures will be put in place to address these problems. They are also required to lodge monthly reports with the court and the applicants on their compliance with the catch-up plan, which must be concluded by the end of this academic year. In addition, Grade 10 learners throughout the Province will benefit from the catch-up plan, which will assist them in closing the gaps in their syllabi caused by the late delivery of textbooks.

While many South Africans seem to have gotten rather upset (in a choreographed expression of moral outrage) about the supposedly inhuman, racist, degrading and humiliating painting of our President because the painting depicts – gasp! – a penis, the real inhuman, racist, degrading and humiliating neglect of our government selling the school children of Limpopo down the drain goes unremarked on. Why worry about a few million starving children when one can get cross about the Presidential willy.

I guess it would be too shameful to feel disgusted by this criminal neglect of our government, because then we would have to confront the immorality of the very system which we often condone or benefit from. We would have to confront the fact that millions of South African children are not only denied decent schooling but also grow up hungry and exposed to preventable disease and that as a society we can do something about it but that – collectively – we do not care enough to take action or to force our government to take action. Far easier to howl in anger about the depiction of a Presidential willy than to confront the real moral decay at the heart of our society, namely our collective disgust and hatred of the poor and our blind celebration of those who acquire material things and our own mad chase after money and material things that might, momentarily, make us feel as if we are worthy of the kind of respect we demand being shown to a second rate politician.

(In any case, what is so special about a man’s penis? Unless one is a patriarch who sees the penis as a symbol of male power and unless one believes a man deserves special treatment and can demand special respect merely because he happens to have a little willy, that organ is a rather silly, inconsequential and laughable appendage, not much different from the belly button or the small toe. Those who invest it with so much meaning - which includes the artist in question - are really just perpetuating male domination and a belief in male superiority by investing the phallus with an almost mystical importance – I almost wrote impotence.  How ridiculous and irrelevant.)

What kind of a country do we live in where so many people can get so angry about a painting of a silly willy, but can blithely ignore the disgusting and even criminal neglect by our government of the education system in one of the poorest provinces in South Africa? Why are we not marching to the President’s house demanding answers about the fact that a new Unicef report - yet to be released – found that 11.5million of the country’s 19 million children are living in poverty. The report states that 7 million children are living in 20% of the poorest households and shows that poor children are 17 times more likely to experience hunger and three times less likely to complete school than children from wealthier backgrounds.

Why are we not outraged at the fact that the government is sabotaging the future of hundreds of thousands if not millions of (mostly black) children (in Limpopo and elsewhere) because government officials and politicians are either too lazy, or too lacking in respect for themselves and their fellow citizens, to do their jobs properly and because those who have money and power (also those working in the private sector) are too greedy to pay more taxes and so many others are too scared of speaking out about the injustices and coprruption around us for fear of being ostracised by friends and family who continue blindly to support the ANC government?

We live in a country where the human dignity of millions of people are daily disrespected in a systematic and structural manner. What kind of dignity is it that we supposedly are so respectful of if we allow, through our silence or our greed, a situation to continue in which many South Africans are dying of hunger or go to bed at night shivering in the cold and wet under a bridge? Surely, we should all feel ashamed and disgusted that so many of our fellow citizens have very little freedom and cannot make meaningful life choices because they are unemployed, hungry and sometimes homeless? The immorality of the social and economic inequality and the depravation around us is something that should anger us all.

Surely if we are going to get angry (and we should), it should not be because of a self-righteously fake morality conjured up by patriarchs about something as utterly banal as a (not-real) depiction of a rather small part of the human anatomy? So where is the anger about the true immorality that is at the heart of this society we live in?

Canadian politicians seem to be slightly more mature about being depicted in a work of art with their private parts hanging out. The large oil on canvas painting, which Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not pose for, by Kingston, Ont.,-based artist Margaret Sutherland shows the prime minister reclining on a chaise lounge wearing nothing but a subtle smile, surrounded by people in suits, whose faces can’t be seen. A dog rests at his feet as a woman in business attire offers him what looks like a Tim Hortons cup on a silver platter.

As reported rather tongue in cheek by the Canadian press, the piece appeared to draw out the art critic in many Canadians. ”This is just too funny – think she painted him a bit skinny – he should really be wearing his vest,” Myrtle Graham posted on Facebook.”This made my day. Nude Stephen Harper is ART,” tweeted Denise Balkissoon.

Other’s weren’t as amused: “Oh dear lord: may have to pluck eyes out now,” tweeted Paula Schuck. “I don’t know whether to laugh or be horrified,” added Kelsey Rolfe.

The Prime Minister’s Office also took to Twitter to voice a reaction to the piece. ”On the Sutherland painting: we’re not impressed. Everyone knows the PM is a cat person,” tweeted Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall, referring to the canine on the canvas.

Others on Parliament Hill took a similar tongue-in-cheek approach.”This is one case where I think we really do need a Conservative cover-up,” said Liberal MP Scott Brison. “I guess you could say in this painting it’s quite obvious that the Prime Minister has very little to hide.”

So far no one has threatened to obtain an urgent interdict to have the painting removed or destroyed. Not even cat lovers.

Did they not watch the movie Howl, about the trial of the publisher of Allan Ginsberg’s long poem of the same name, who was charged with obscenity for publishing the poem. If they had watched this movie, they might have remembered how ridiculous all the state witnesses were made to look during that trial while these witnesses tried to measure a work of artistic expression against a moral standard that was at best vague and at worst impossible to pin down.

I was thus quite amused to read in an ANC press statement that the party ”is extremely disturbed and outraged by the distasteful and indecent manner” in which the artist Brett Murray and the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg “is displaying the person (sic) of Comrade President Jacob Zuma”. The ANC is not happy. Patriarchs like to use their penises for all kinds of things, but usually do not like to have them made fun of in a work of art. It insults one’s manhood, I am told.

Hence the ANC tirade which continues: “This disgusting and unfortunate display of the President was brought to our attention by one of the media houses and we have physically confirmed this insulting depiction of the President”. The ANC does not say what this physical confirmation entailed or whether it had determined whether the penis displayed in the art work is sufficiently similar to that of the President to warrant the conflation of art with reality.

I provide a copy of work of art causing all the trouble below so that those who might not have read City Press on Sunday have the chance to enjoy this provocative piece of art and to consider its meaning and esthetic value for themselves. (Feel free to copy it and send it to all your friends! After all, in a democracy making up one’s own mind about something – also the meaning and value of a work of art – is a human right.)

Afterthought: The poster of which this painting is a parody may not be known to everyone, so I repost it here:

The ANC may not be aware of the fact that section 16(1)(c) of the Constitution states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ”freedom of artistic creativity”.  It is true that no right is unlimited but even where the right to free expression is limited an exception is usually made for artistic expression. Our law often distinguishes between real depictions of individuals and art works and hardly ever allows for the censoring of the latter. For example, section 12 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (which prohibits hate speech) explicity makes an exception for a “bona fide engagement in artistic creativity”. Section 3 of the Film and Publications Act contains a similar exception.

The fact that the ANC seems incapable of distinguishing between a work of art and real life will probably ruin their legal case they are planning to launch. The ANC statement says that it has instructed its lawyers to approach the courts to compel Brett Murray and Goodman Gallery to remove the portrait from display as well as from their website and to destroy all printed promotional material relating to the work. But given the protection for artistic freedom in the Constitution and the many exceptions in our law made for the expression of such artistic creativity, I am am almost 100 percent certain that the ANC’s proposed legal action will not be successful. In a democracy, courts seldom order the censoring of a work of art – even if that work of art makes fun of the President and his philandering patriarchal ways. I quote the rest of the ANC statement in full for your further gratification.

We have also detected that this distasteful and vulgar portrait of the President has been displayed on a weekend newspaper and its website, we again have instructed our lawyers to request the said newspaper to remove the portrait from their website. It is in our view and we remain steadfast in that the image and the dignity of our President as both President of the ANC, President of the Republic and as a human being has been dented by this so-called piece of art by Brett Murray at Goodman Gallery. We are also of the view that this distasteful depiction of the President has violated his individual right to dignity as contained in the constitution of our country.

The same gallery has displayed the logo of the ANC without the permission of the ANC, with the inscription FOR SALE on it, both these portraits are a clear calculation to dismember and denigrate the symbols and the representative of the ANC, chief amongst them, the President of the ANC. The ANC believes in both freedom of the press and artistic expression. The vulgar portrait and the dismembering of the ANC logo by Brett Murray is an abuse of freedom of artistic expression and an acute violation of our constitution, apart from being defamatory. That is why we have instructed our lawyers to approach the courts in-view of these violations and the defaming nature of the so-called President Zuma portrait titled ”The Spear”.

Issued by:
Jackson Mthembu
African National Congress

As this is a work of art, there is no chance that any half decent judge would grant the orders requested by the ANC, first, because there is no law that prohibits an artist from making such a portrait and second, because if there were such a law it would be unconstitutional. That is why I have taken the liberty to reproduce the artwork here and why I have invited my readers to distribute it widely. There is no place in our democracy for this kind of Christian Nationalist-like moral outrage and the concomitant attempts at censorship of artistic expression.

All the ANC has done is to make themselves (and our President) the laughing stock of the country. In fact, if I was a conceptual artist I would have taken the ANC statement, superimposed it over the ANC logo, and framed it before asking the Goodman Gallery whether it wanted to display my work of art. My work would be humorous, yes, but would also make an important point about artistic expression. I am sure I could have gotten a few thousand Rand for it, too.

After all, they had a right to express their views, no matter how repugnant, bigoted, bizarre and superstitious I might have found these views — just as I had the right to demonstrate my love and affection to the person dearest to me. That is one of the advantages of living in a constitutional democracy. As long as one does not break the constitutionally valid laws of the country, one is free to do and say what one wants.

Section 17 of the South African Constitution states that: “Everyone has the right peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.” This right forms part of the bouquet of rights aimed at securing a democratic space in which individuals can express their views, can demonstrate in support of those views, can listen to others and consider changing their minds. If these rights are not vigilantly protected, democracy itself is diminished.

If one is intolerant of the views of others to the extent that one would take action to prevent others from expressing these views or trying to spread their views by holding marches or handing over petitions, one is intolerant of democracy itself. If one disagrees with a view expressed by others and promoted via a peaceful march, then one should counter that view with better arguments and holding another, larger, peaceful march. Not by trying to deny others their democratic rights.

That is why the actions by the Cosatu leadership as well as Cosatu members today must be condemned in the strongest terms. First Patrick Craven of Cosatu (and the ANC) called on the DA not to exercise their democratic right to demonstrate. Then the National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa) and its affiliates vowed to “swamp the streets outside Cosatu House”.

Numsa spokesman Castro Ngobese complained that: “This mass gathering is informed by the provocative, deceitful and cheap political blackmail from the chief representatives of white monopoly capital and apartheid apologists the DA.” Ngobese said the DA was trying to coerce the ANC-led government, particularly its ally Cosatu, to agree to the neo-liberal proposal of a youth wage subsidy.

(Ironically the march was aimed at promoting a youth wage subsidy, a policy supported by the ANC government.)

Then this morning Cosatu members intimidated DA marchers and threw stones at them (with some reports of the DA marchers retaliating) and at journalists, injuring several people.  Patrick Craven incredibly justified this action by stating: “We showed [the DA] we would not be intimidated.” Mouthing platitudes about supporting the right to peaceful protest (as Vavi did in a tweet) after you have called on your supporters to stop a DA march from getting close to your headquarters, merely illustrates than one is a hypocrite, not that  one is a man of principle.

There is no place in our democracy for such anti-democratic intolerance. The argument that the marchers “provoked” Cosatu members who were by implication justified in using violence to stop the march, does not hold water. No one has a right to bring a violent end to a march because they believe the message of the marchers is wrong or that the marchers have no right to demonstrate close to where they work. If they had, the rights protected in section 17 of the Constitution would be illusory. Leaders have a special duty to ensure that their followers do not deny the rights of fellow citizens and they must not instigate unlawful and undemocratic action by their followers.

It is deeply disappointing that Cosatu leaders like Zwelenzima Vavi, somebody I have always held in high regard, would stoop to such a low.

Some commentators have argued that the DA was irresponsible to march on the Cosatu headquarters and that it was strategically wrongheaded. But this is a red-herring. One might well believe that it was unwise for the DA to march on Cosatu headquarters (or that they will not win any votes in this way), but there is no law in South Africa prohibiting one from being unwise. In fact, the Constitution requires the Police to protect even those who we believe are acting unwisely from the intolerant and undemocratic attacks by fellow citizens.

The Police also has a duty to protect marchers from intimidation and attack. There might be cases where intolerant citizens spontaneously begin to threaten marchers and the Police must then step in to protect the marchers. If they cannot do so, they may try to defuse the situation by diverting the march. But where leaders in effect call on supporters to deny other citizens their democratic rights, the Police has a positive duty to deploy the necessary resources to protect such marchers. The Police did not (or could not) stop Cosatu members from massing and attacking the DA marchers, suggesting that the Police is partly to blame for the ensuing bloodshed.

Lastly, I am not an economist so I do not have a strong view about whether the youth wage subsidy is a good thing or a bad thing. But if Cosatu wants to convince people like myself that it is a bad idea, they will have to present arguments to that effect. They sure as hell will not convince me of their view by stopping others from expressing the contrary view.

In fact, responding to a peaceful protest march with violence would suggest that Cosatu does not have a sound and convincing argument that it thinks will convince the millions of unemployed youth that a policy aimed at creating youth employment is a bad thing. Maybe there are such arguments, but in the absence of a cogent and sound response from Cosatu, many people will be left with the perception that Cosatu is protecting the interests of its members and do not care much about the unemployed who, after all, are not constituents of Cosatu because they are unemployed and cannot join a union.

Whether he did or did not take bribes with the understanding that he would influence the awarding of tenders in Limpopo, his defence was not plausible. This is because one does not have to sit on a tender committee to influence a tender. All one needs to do, is to ensure that one has influence or power over those who sit on the tender committee. One can obtain influence or power over those who sit on such a committee by ensuring that that political underlings sit on the committee or by bribing its members or by ensuring loyal political allies sit on the committee or by obtaining a hold over those who sit on the committee by letting it be known that one has damaging information about them which might be leaked to the media.

It is therefore not too difficult unfairly or even corruptly to influence the awarding of tenders without formally breaking the law. This is because it is very difficult to insulate the procurement process from informal loyalties and political considerations. That is why – with tenders – perceptions can be almost as important as the reality.

Not that the Constitution and South African legislation do not attempt to address these problems as best it can. Section 217(1) of the Constitution therefore states that:

When an organ of state in the national, provincial or local sphere of government, or any other institution identified in national legislation, contracts for goods or services, it must do so in accordance with a system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.

Section 217(2) qualifies this general statement as it states that organs of state are allowed to implement a procurement policy providing for categories of preference in the allocation of contracts; and the protection or advancement of persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. But this has to happen in a manner that is fair, equitable, transparent and competitive.

In terms of section 76(4)(c) of the Public Finance Management Act (PMFA) the National Treasury may make regulations or issue instructions concerning the determining of a framework for an appropriate supply chain management at national or provincial level which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. However, according to section 38(1)(a)(iii) of the Act it is the responsibility of the accounting officer/authority of a department, trading entity or constitutional institution to have and maintain an appropriate procurement and supply system which is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective. Where a procurement system is established that is not fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective, the awarding of a tender through that system would be unlawful.

Which brings us to the curious case of the Western Cape government’s curious politicisation of the tender process in a case that implicates the government at best in improper behaviour.. During 2011, the Department of the Premier in the Provincial Government of the Western Cape contracted with a company for the provision of various communications services. Two special advisors of Premier Helen Zille were appointed to the Committee tasked with evaluating the various bids for this contract. In a draft report by the Public Protector regarding the alleged improper or unlawful participation of these special advisors in the evaluation of the bids, it was concluded that these appointments was unlawful and had rendered the adjudication management and the entire procurement process invalid and constituted improper conduct and maladministration. One of these special advisors, Ryan Coetzee, is often referred to as the political brains trust of the DA and during the last national election he was the party’s main election strategist and Chief Executive.

The DA’s obtained legal advice to try and counter this preliminary finding. The legal advice, prepared by Geoff Budlender, distinguishes between conduct which is unlawful because it is in breach of a prescription of the law and may affect the legal validity of the conduct in question on the one hand and improper because it is inappropriate in some way. The fact that conduct has been improper does not necessarily affect its legal validity.

Budlender then argues – correctly as far as I can tell – that there is no provision in the law which explicitly prohibits the participation of Special Advisers as members of a Bid Evaluation Committee. He also, rather technically and formalistically, argues that the Constitution, read with various guidelines and regulations, do not implicitly prohibit the participation of a special advisor in a bid evaluation committee. Although the involvement of Zille’s special advisors might have been improper, it may not have been unlawful. But the legal advice is not nearly as unequivocal as the DA presented it as being, as Budlender writes that the question whether the appointment of the Premier’s special advisors to the bid evaluation committee was unlawful or not “may be in some doubt”:

In this matter, however, the situation is somewhat blurred by the fact that there is no explicit prohibition of Special Advisers being members of Bid Evaluation Committees. If there is such a prohibition, it is one which is to be inferred from other provisions of the law. It seems to me that this weakens the applicability of the general proposition that the legislation contemplates that a failure to constitute the BEC lawfully is to result in a nullity.

I would argue that in deciding whether the presence of Zille’s special advisors were unlawful or not, one should look at the purpose of section 217 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions in the PFMA in order to judge whether a tender procedure complies with it and that one should also take into account the specific context of each case (as the Constitutional Court often does). One should therefore not look at this question in the abstract (as Budlender seems to do), but should look at the facts of each case and ask whether the system set up to evaluate the tender was in a particular case indeed fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective as required by the Constitution and the PFMA.

As I see it, the purpose of section 217 of the Constitution, the PFMA and the procurement regulations set up to give effect to it, is to prevent corruption and to establish a fair tender system in which political or personal financial considerations would play no role in the decision-making of the committee called upon to evaluate and award tenders. Where one of the Premier’s special advisors happens to be a highly controversial and profoundly political appointee (how could he not be, given that he was one of the leading political strategists of the DA during the last national election and that he stood for the position of the Parliamentary leader of the DA a few years ago), it is clearly improper that the special advisor should be part of a tender bid evaluation committee.

As Budlender suggests, it is arguably also unlawful as the participation of such a political animal, someone who advises the Premier and the leader of the DA and is known to be politically highly influential, would sabotage the integrity of the procurement process and would create the reasonable perception that the system is not fair and equitable. Luckily for the DA government, the Premier’s special advisors were not particularly effective and did not manage to sway the committee to support the bid of their choice, which means that the government would probably not have to cancel the contract even if it had followed an unlawful process in awarding the tender.

However, these seem to me to be a rather technical and unnecessarily formalistic approach to a matter of impropriety (or, perhaps, unlawful conduct). What, I wonder, would the DA have said if Paul Ngobeni, the then special advisor to Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, had been appointed to a bid evaluation committee of the Department of Defence? Or if Gwede Mantashe had been appointed to a bid evaluation committee in the Office of the Presidency?

Even if, following the formalistic narrow reasoning of the DA’s legal opinion, such appointments would not be deemed unlawful, they would be wrong and improper and the DA would have had a field day painting the ANC government as corrupt because of the involvement of such highly controversial individuals with clear and unwavering political commitments and loyalties to a bid evaluation committee. The same rule should therefore surely apply to the DA in this case.

It is not appropriate for a special advisor to a politician to sit on a bid evaluation committee, full stop. It is even more inappropriate if that special advisor is controversial and is perceived to be and is in fact, a politician him or herself and is widely viewed as representing the views of the politician he or she supposedly advises.

The DA would do well to stop parsing words and drop the reliance on the formalistic technical legal arguments and admit that what the Western Cape government did was wrong. Although there is no evidence of corruption, it does not make an otherwise improper or unlawful process proper and lawful.

What was Ryan Coetzee doing on this bid evaluation committee in any case? Why did he, unlike everyone else, favour a different bidder? Was he improperly pushing for the awarding of a tender to the bidder favoured by his political boss, Helen Zille? There might be innocent answers to these questions, but because of his high political profile, the perception is necessarily created that something is fishy with his involvement in this process. That is why special advisors, especially special advisors of this kind, should never sit on bid evaluation committees. Why the DA cannot just admit this and move on is beyond me.

He then proceeds to explain why the system of racial segregation and the subjugation of black South Africans by the white minority had “failed” in the following rather cold-hearted and unemotional manner:

But in South Africa it failed. And by the end of the ‘70’s, we had to realize, and accept and admit to ourselves that it had failed. And that is when fundamental reform started…. There are three reasons it (apartheid) failed. It failed because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. It failed because we (whites and blacks) became economically integrated, and it failed because the majority of blacks said that is not how we want our rights…. I can only say in a qualified way. Inasmuch as it trampled human right, it was – and remains – and that I’ve said also publicly, morally reprehensible. But the concept of giving as the Czechs have it and the Slovaks have it, of saying that ethnic unities with one culture, with one language, can be happy and can fulfil their democratic aspirations in an own state, that is not repugnant.

The attitude displayed by De Klerk is shared by many (but thankfully by no means all) white South Africans and to my mind it illustrates quite emphatically why white South Africans are still widely viewed with some scepticism by many black South Africans. It is a timely reminder that many white South Africans do not “get” race and that they do not know or, worse, do not care that they are not getting it.

What De Klerk cannot admit or what he is incapable of admitting is that apartheid was not wrong – a moral abomination – because it had “failed” or merely because the human rights of black South Africans were trampled on in order to enforce the system of white domination. It was morally reprehensible because it was born out of a profound racist attitude towards black South Africans, and its logic was based on the dehumanising belief, at best, that white people were morally, intellectually and culturally superior to black people and, at worst, that black people are not fully human and do not deserve to be treated with even a modicum of concern and respect.

Apartheid was the logical result of the ideology of racism enforced by the state and could only be implemented because white South Africans believed then (as many continue to believe today – even if they are not aware of this and will deny it) that they are infinitely superior as a group to black people as a group.

Apartheid can therefore not be compared with what has happened in the former Czechoslovakia. Neither can it be compared with the impulse in Belgium for French and Flemish speakers to want to govern themselves. In these countries, different language, cultural or ethnic groups have chosen to be goverened by those who are like them, not because of the inherent belief that they are intellectually, culturally and morally superior to another group and because of the fear and hatred towards that group. Unlike with the apartheid system, the founding belief of these societies are not that its members would be tainted, subverted or defiled if they had to mix with another group whom they believed to be inferior.

The system of apartheid was not only tainted by racism or skewed by it, leading to human rights abuses against black South Africans. Racism – the fear and hatred of black South Africans by white South Africans born out of a sense of imperious superiority – was the very reasons for the creation and enforcement of apartheid.

One of the most deeply problematic aspects of life in post-apartheid South Africa is that so many white South Africans continue to deny this fact and seem incapable of confronting their own deeply ingrained sense that as white people they are generally intellectually, culturally and morally superior to most black people – although they think that by making an exception for Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu they have overcome the racism within them. Fact is: we have not dealt with our own racism, no matter how progressive we are and no matter how we claim to be non-racist. Many of us may not use the “k”-word and may express our abhorance of racism, but we cannot “unwhite” ourselves and cut ourselves loose from the racists culture and world in which we live. How could we, as racism is embedded in Western culture as a defining characteristic of that culture, a culture which helps to define who we are and where we are supposed to “belong”.

That is, perhaps, why so many white South Africans get so defensive when one talks about racism, and when one calls someone out on his or her own blatant or latent racism and why excuses are so often made for racists. Because if as white South Africans we are all morally tainted because we are white, if because being white necessarily implies that we carry within our bodies the virus of racism born out of a false sense of racial superiority, then we stop being who we think we are and we lose our sense of identity as whites who by definition are superior.

When we confront the virus of racism that pumps through our veins because we happen to be white, we have to admit that we are not superior to anyone and, in fact, we become, at least, as morally tainted as everyone else, but probably morally far inferior to black South Africans. But as the definition of whiteness implies for many white people a (often unspoken and unexamined) superiority to other racial groups, this acceptance of the fact that we are morally tainted (also) because we are white (of course, no one in the world is not tainted in some way), is literally impossible to comprehend, something that would drive one mad because, for many, it just cannot be true!

No wonder De Klerk has to insist that apartheid was wrong merely because it did not work very well. If he had to admit that the very premise of apartheid made it an evil system, he would have to confront the fact that he was part of a deeply immoral system and this would fatally undermine or even destroy his sense of self – his sense of self as an essentially good person who might (because of circumstances) have made a “few mistakes” but who remains the morally superior white person he implicitly believes himself to be.

This is perhaps also why the Democratic Alliance (DA) is finding it difficult to navigate the troubled waters of racism. Earlier today journalist Osiame Molefe tellingly tweeted: “Taking on racist models is one thing, what says the DA on apartheid denialist de Klerk.” Molefe is right, but I am not sure that the DA will be able to answer him and to respond appropriately because it would create too much tension inside the DA and that party would be at war with itself.

Fact is that the DA is between a rock and a hard place. If it really wanted to confront its image of being a party for whites, a party that arrogantly exudes the values of white superiority, it will have to confront the deeply embedded notion of white superiority that so many of its current voters (and some of its public representatives) fearfully cling to in order to retain the sense that they are essentially decent human beings. It is never easy to admit that one is not as decent as one would have liked.

What the majority of white people in the world do not understand is that it can be rather liberating to throw off the burden imposed on us by the need to feel superior to others. By admitting that it is impossible to be free from racism, given that we live in a world whose economic and social structures are based on the notion of white superiority, one is freed to begin to face up to one’s responsibilities and to begin to address the problem. If one embraces the fact that one is not special, that (like all other human beings) one is incapable of living a truly ethical life but that one has an ethical duty to continue trying to do so, it is easier to let go of the anger and the hatred (and the fear and the shame which produces the anger and the hatred) that poisons one’s life.

And now I wait for the barrage of angry posts by those who prefer to continue living in their denialist cocoon of festering anger and hatred. But whether they really hate others or themselves, only they will be able to tell.

Tribalism has bedevilled politics in many parts of Africa, referring as it does to the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group, an identity often deployed to facilitate political mobilisation of that tribe against perceived enemies and threats. Often tribalism goes hand in hand with chauvinism, the notion that one’s own tribe is culturally, spiritually and morally superior to those who do not belong to ones tribe. Tribalism is thus obviously divisive and exclusionary and Nelson Mandela, preaching unity in diversity, warned of the dangers of tribalism in our democratic state.

Tribalism is also, on a personal level, stifling and oppressive and not easily squared with the notion of the protection of human dignity, which assumes that we all have some agency to decide for ourselves who we are and how we want to live. It assumes that because one shares certain characteristics, cultural attributes, a language or a particular kinship bond with others, one should think and behave like the group and associate with it. It demands loyalty to the group and conformity to its beliefs and its political project – no matter how obnoxious, oppressive or downright murderous that political project might be.

This kind of identity politics is by its very nature conservative and intolerant of difference (differences within the group as well as differences between the group and those who do not belong to it). Tribalists usually do not embrace the full spectrum of human possibilities as it sees identity primarily or – in extreme cases exclusively – in tribal terms. But in order to live meaningful lives it is important to embrace and celebrate the multiplicity of overlapping identities that make us who we are.

That is why I am not a great fan of “Afrikaners” (or Zulu’s for that matter) organising around their tribal identity, as if the architects of apartheid were correct and as if there are only minority groups in South Africa – all members of different tribes – who must therefore organise around their tribal identities to protect or advance their own financial and political interests.

I am a white, Afrikaans speaking South African. But I am also a gay, HIV positive, constitutional law professor; a citizen of the world who travels widely and reads the poetry of Wislawa Szymborska and Wally Serote; a rugby supporter who listens to Zahara and Ntando in my spare time; a loving brother of four sisters; an atheist who would never dream of joining the ATKV and would laugh out loud if I were ever to be confronted by the bizarre exhortations of the local NG Kerk dominee.

Although I am proudly Afrikaans speaking, I am decidedly not an “Afrikaner”. In my eyes an “Afrikaner” is a highly political concept and a problematic one at that; it is an exclusionary identity as it refers to a group of white Afrikaans speaking people who more or less share a political orientation, cultural habits and assumptions, religious beliefs and a persecution complex that would even make Judge President John Hlophe blush. By saying that I am not an Afrikaner, I am not trying to pretend that my forefathers did not enthusiastically enforce apartheid and that I am still benefiting from it as a result. But I am saying that I reject the political label of Afrikaner because it says nothing about who I am, what I think, how I behave, who I am friends with and what makes me comfortable.

So when I read in the papers that the ANC has met with a group of “Afrikaners”, purportedly conveying to the ANC the views of “Afrikaners” about what is wrong with current day South Africa, I wonder who these people are speaking for and I wonder why the ANC is humouring them. It does not help that Afrikaans groups at the meeting included all the usual suspects, the very institutions which developed and implemented and championed apartheid: the Afrikanerbond, the NG Kerk, the Voortrekker Monument, the Afrikaanse Taal en Kultuurvereniging, the Afrikaanse Taalraad and the Federation of Governing Bodies of SA Schools.

Maybe it says something about the rightward turn inside the ANC under Jacob Zuma that the ANC has deemed it important enough to meet with this tribal group and is, in effect, endorsing this kind of tribalism. Maybe it says something about the racism embedded in our society. Why is it that when rich white Afrikaans speakers complain, the ANC is prepared to send a high-powered delegation to speak to them, but when social movements like Khulumani, the Landless People’s Movement or Abahlali baseMjondolo complain, they are mostly ignored.

Maybe it says something about the power of money and the economic power of white Afrikaans speaking South Africans that the ANC jumps when the so called “Afrikaners” complain, but will never bend over backwards like this if the complaints emanate from powerless and economically vulnerable groups.

There are lots to complain about in South Africa and, goodness knows, the ANC has a lot of explaining to do. But I would prefer a non-tribalist engagement with the ANC, one that would not be made possible only because the ANC is able to neatly put me in a box as somebody who fits the political description of an “Afrikaner”. The kind of engagement I am talking about is the engagement by NGO’s and social movements, academics and civil society interest groups – and of course, by all people who know that our Constitution allows them to be active citizens (as citizens, not as members of a tribal group), to protest and engage and argue and ridicule the arrogant and the cynical holders of political power.

Given the fact that section 1 of the Constitution states unequivocally that the Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded, inter alia, on the values of non-sexism, universal adult suffrage, and a multi-party system of democratic government to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness, section 211 guarantees no more than a symbolic or ceremonial role for traditional leaders. This is because traditional leadership is by its nature undemocratic and not accountable, responsive or open and hence not compatible with democracy if such leadership is going to be given a governance role.

As Prof Christina Murray pointed out, the fact that traditional leadership has survived at all in the democratic era is quite remarkable. This is because – as in most other parts of Africa – South Africa’s traditional leaders were co-opted by the colonial powers to help it govern rural areas. Ugandan academic Mahmood Mamdani famously described colonial tribal rule as “rule by decentralised despots”. This was also the case in South Africa. In particular, from the early 1950s under the apartheid government, the development of legislative and administrative structures in the Bantustans saw traditional leadership used to enforce apartheid and to act as local government rulers in Bantustans and retain control over black South Africans living in rural areas.

The central government’s power of patronage (which remains to this day in the form of the payment of large “salaries” to traditional leaders) was encapsulated in the apartheid government’s power to depose and install chiefs, making the chiefs an effective tool in implementing apartheid policies. Under the corrupt apartheid system the rewards for compliance could be great. As Maloka and Gordon relate, in the Transkei, where 30 chiefs were deposed between 1955 and 1958 for resistance to the demands of the apartheid government, Kaiser Matanzima of the lesser Thembu royal house won the favour of the apartheid authorities and later became president of the Bantustan.

Murray again:

Colonial and then apartheid structures also meant that chiefs increasingly turned to the government rather than their subjects for support. Van Kessel and Van Oomen say: ‘[S]tate recognition [became] more vital for the chieftaincy than popular support. Chiefs had become civil servants, to be hired, fired, paid and, if necessary, created by the government’. Expected to deliver services with no real sources of income, they used some of apartheid’s most vicious laws to support their enterprise. For instance, under apartheid’s system of migrant labour, African men recruited from rural areas to work on the mines had to have their ‘passes’ and permits renewed annually in their home village. Chiefs administered the pass book system and ran the labour bureaux where permits were renewed – and they received a ‘registration fee’ for their efforts.

Given these facts it is surprising that traditional leaders have managed to ingratiate themselves with the African National Congress in the post-apartheid era. It did so by forming the Congress of Traditional Leaders of South Africa (CONTRALESA) in 1987, just as the uprising against the apartheid state was reaching a new intensity. Chiefs saw the writing on the wall for the apartheid system (and was also being impoverished because of the collapse of the pass law system which generated much of the Chiefs’ income) and turned to the ANC. Nevertheless, during the constitutional negotiations, gender activists and “modernists” completely outwitted and outvoted the Chiefs.

Thus the tepid endorsement of traditional leaders in Chapter 12 of the Constitution as well as several provisions in the Bill of Rights which made clear that cultural rights as well as customary law would henceforth be subject to the discipline of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights – including section 9 which prohibits unfair discrimination on any ground – including sex, gender and sexual orientation.

These provisions were unsuccessfully challenged by CONTRALESA during the certification of the 1996 Constitution by the Constitutional Court. In that judgment the Court made the following statement about the difficulties of marrying a system of traditional leadership with democracy:

In a purely republican democracy, in which no differentiation of status on grounds of birth is recognised, no constitutional space exists for the official recognition of any traditional leaders, let alone a monarch. Similarly, absent an express authorisation for the recognition of indigenous law, the principle of equality before the law … could be read as presupposing a single and undifferentiated legal regime for all South Africans with no scope for the application of customary law – hence the need for expressly articulated CPs [Constitutional Principles] recognising a degree of cultural pluralism with legal and cultural, but not necessarily governmental, consequences.

But despite the incompatibility of undemocratic traditional leadership with a constitutional democracy, some elements of traditional leadership and customary law were retained. This attempt to accommodate the chieftaincy – despite its tainted past as enforcers of apartheid – was animated by both emotional as well as a practical considerations.

Given the colonial encounter and the devastation it wrought on Africans, traditional leaders have been able – despite their dark, collaborationist past – to promote themselves as symbols of the dignity of African communities and cultures – supposedly untainted by colonialism. Although it is, of course, not possible to return to a pre-colonial era in which traditional leaders, applying customary law untainted by the ravages of capitalism and the greed and dishonesty that always accompanies it, there is a strong yearning – sometimes expressed and sometimes unspoken and unexamined – for such a symbolic return to a different way of life which would signal some kind of rejection of colonialism and European imposed structures and legal regimes.

Second, millions of South Africans still live under a system of customary law, which often provides an easy and cheap mechanism to resolve disputes. Given the fact that many rural citizens are not able to gain access to magistrates courts because such courts are far away from where they live and because they lack resources to make effective use of such courts, and given the fact that, culturally, the common law or the legislation passed by Parliament do not always speak to the ways they live, organise their lives or their attitudes towards those in their community, customary law still thrives in some parts of South Africa.

It is against this background that traditional leaders (who are the main interpreters and enforcers of customary law) are making a political comeback. But because many aspects of customary law are incompatible with the Constitution, given that traditional leaders are not democratically chosen and are in no way independent (as they are paid and can be removed by the government) and given, further, the fact that many traditional leaders have been corrupted by money and greed, there are serious problems with the system relied on by so many people living in rural areas. While the system works relatively well in some places, in others it has been abandoned.

It is therefore curious that with the Traditional Courts Bill, the government is seeking to re-impose a fundamentally undemocratic system that is incompatible with the separation of powers and an independent judiciary – even on those communities who have rejected it. Why our democratic government would propose to pass a law that would potentially bolster the autocratic powers of unelected Chiefs remains difficult to fathom.

Perhaps the answer lies in naked electoral politics. The move therefore might have much to do with the perception among some ANC leaders (which might not be true) that by cosying up to Chiefs the ANC will be gaining more votes in rural areas. It presupposes that Chiefs are universally popular – which they are not – and that rural people by and large will not or cannot think for themselves and will allow themselves to be told how to vote by their respective Chiefs.

Where Chiefs are wise and benevolent and where loyalty to a Chiefs is strong, a Chief might well have an important influence on his “subjects”, but in other areas it is far from clear that support for the ANC by corrupted and unpopular Chiefs will translate into a mass vote for the ANC.

In any event, the Traditional Courts Bill in its current form is clearly incompatible with the Constitution and even if it is passed it will never stand the test of constitutionality. Why some in the ANC therefore seem to be hell-bent on passing this law – despite the dubious gains – remains a mystery.

However, perusing their website, one cannot help but wonder whether Contralesa (pictured below) is not also spurred on by the far less noble goal of self-enrichment. Contralesa thus complains that traditional leaders are being discriminated against:

Traditional leaders of all ranks, i.e. kings, inkosi (chiefs) and inkosana (headmen), are, like politicians in government, public office bearers.  They are entitled to be remunerated in a manner commensurate with their responsibilities and status. The truth, however, is that in this regard traditional  leaders are discriminated against. The best that they receive is a basic salary without the concomitant allowances such as medical aid, motor vehicle  allowances, pension benefits, etc. Due to lack of uniformity in the manner in which provincial governments treat the institution, some traditional  leaders have been provided with motor vehicles, while others have not. Needless to say, this gives rise to resentment and annoyance on the part of  those who do not get this form of support.

Kings and Queens currently earn over R900 000 a year, while other traditional leaders earn between R180 00 and R650 000 a year. Not being provided with a free vehicle at taxpayers expense must therefore cause serious financial hardship for traditional leaders, but not to the extent that they are not prepared to engage in robust engagement about important issues of the day (other than the salaries and benefits paid to them by the taxpayer).

Last year The House of Traditional Leaders, packed with the members of Contralesa, submitted a proposal to the Constitutional Review Committee of the National Assembly to amend section 9 of the Constitution. This Committee, set up in terms of section 45 of the Constitution, has to review the Constitution annually, but in the past 17 years they have rejected every single proposal made to it for the amendment of the Constitution out of hand. The Committee is chaired by Nkosi Sango Patekile Holomisa, who also happens to be the President of Contralesa.

At this year’s committee sittings, most proposals were again dismissed, but not the proposals to change the property clauses and those concerning the abolition of the prohibition to discriminate against gay men and lesbians. The House of Traditional Leaders suggested a redrafting of the Bill of Rights so that it would in future be legal to discriminate unfairly against gay men, lesbians and other sexual minorities, and the Review Committee decided to refer this matter (along with the proposed amendments to the property clause) the political parties represented in the National Assembly for discussion and consideration.

This means that the various Parliamentary caucuses of political parties represented in Parliament will soon have to decide whether they support unfair discrimination against people they might believe are not like them, or whether they will affirm their commitment to non-discrimination and the respect for the human dignity of all South Africans, the very bedrock on which the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution is founded.

The decision of the Committee not to reject this dehumanising and insulting proposal out of hand (as it has done with all other proposals over the past 17 years) suggest that Holomisa believes that it is completely reasonable to ask political parties to consider whether they support unfair discrimination against fellow South Africans and whether they believe that it is necessary to endorse the denial of the human dignity of fellow South Africans.

Given South Africa’s history, this is a shocking move. The apartheid government believed that some people were sub-human because they were black or female or gay, lesbian, transgendered or intersexed and enforced a dehumanising set of laws to give effect to this belief and to try and affirm their supposed superiority as white men. But in the very act of enforcing this kind of discrimination, they affirmed the opposite, namely their own moral inferiority.

As a direct response to this history of dehumanisation the drafters of the Constitution, endorsing the view that all human beings possess an inherent human dignity and are therefore of equal moral worth, prohibited unfair discrimination against individuals regardless of their race, sex, gender or sexual orientation.

The House of Traditional Leaders, on the other hand, seems to believe that some of us are not fully human and that it is therefore imperative that the state should be allowed unfairly to discriminate against us merely because we happen to be emotionally and erotically attracted to members of the same sex and because we do not conform to a specific notion of “normality” created and perpetuated by white, colonial missionaries, a norm ironically and tragically adopted by traditional leaders infected with the ideas of South Africa’s colonisers.

It might well be that traditional leaders are not aware that their support for unfair discriminatory measures against gay men, lesbians and other sexual minorities stem from the colonial encounter and that their fear of (and disgust towards) us stem from their internalisation of the values of the colonial master. It might also be that they are not aware that such fear and disgust often stem from an unacknowledged or unwitting anxiety about their own sexual identity.

But the drafters of our Constitution knew that equality is indivisible and that one cannot truly affirm the human dignity of all if one endorses unfair discrimination against a marginalised and oppressed minority merely because such a minority is viewed as different from oneself (or from who one believes or pretends one is).

The fact that the Committee has decided not to reject this deeply reactionary proposal out of hand, suggests that some of its members endorse inequality and prejudice and support an imposition of uniformity and the concomitant suppression of all difference. It suggests an intolerance of those who do not conform to gender or sexual stereotypes or to some other non-existing or ephemeral norm, created and perpetuated to enforce the continued dominance of patriarchy. Either that or the members of the Committee are prepared to flirt with these notions so roundly rejected by the drafters of our Constitution and by the ANC in its constitutional proposals for short term political gain.

In Minister of Justice v Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Equality Justice Albie Sachs noted that: “the success of the whole constitutional endeavour in South Africa will depend in large measure on how successfully sameness and difference are reconciled.” He continued by warning:

Equality means equal concern and respect across difference. It does not pre-suppose the elimination or suppression of difference. Respect for human rights requires the affirmation of self, not the denial of self. Equality therefore does not imply a levelling or homogenisation of behaviour but an acknowledgment and acceptance of difference. At the very least, it affirms that difference should not be the basis for exclusion, marginalisation, stigma and punishment. At best, it celebrates the vitality that difference brings to any society.

The acknowledgment and acceptance of difference is particularly important in a society like South Africa where perceived racial differences were used to oppress the majority of citizens. As Sachs pointed out:

The development of an active rather than a purely formal sense of enjoying a common citizenship depends on recognising and accepting people as they are. The concept of sexual deviance needs to be reviewed. A heterosexual norm was established, gays were labelled deviant from the norm and difference was located in them.163 What the Constitution requires is that the law and public institutions acknowledge the variability of human beings and affirm the equal respect and concern that should be shown to all as they are. At the very least, what is statistically normal ceases to be the basis for establishing what is legally normative. More broadly speaking, the scope of what is constitutionally normal is expanded to include the widest range of perspectives and to acknowledge, accommodate and accept the largest spread of difference. What becomes normal in an open society, then, is not an imposed and standardised form of behaviour that refuses to acknowledge difference, but the acceptance of the principle of difference itself, which accepts the variability of human behaviour.

Those who believe that it is reasonable to debate whether some South Africans should be afforded equal concern and respect, are likely also those who believe that the state has a right to impose a standardised form of behaviour on all of us in order to eradicate all forms of behaviour which do not conform with what a small group of pampered patriarchs believe is acceptable (or in their financial interest). This is a small group of powerful men who might well believe that all outward manifestations of love and emotional affection that do not conform to what  they believe is in their interest must be suppressed in order  to retain and expand their power over what they believe to be their subjects: younger men; all women; and homosexuals.

The proposals must still be debated, but the very fact that it will be debated is dehumanising to those of us who must now wonder whether people like Holomisa believe that we are subhuman and therefore deserve to be unfairly discriminated against, vilified and (followed to its logical extreme) eventually raped and killed. Ironically, some of us will recall the depraved immorality of the patriarchal enforcers of apartheid and will know in our hearts that by the very act of raising this issue, the members of the Committee and the House of Traditional Leaders are merely affirming their own moral inferiority.