Quote of the week
Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
A little less certainty
A reader argues that my position on affirmative action is fundamentally flawed, because my assumption is that there can be no fair and objective criteria of merit that can apply to both “white” and “black”. So one just has to choose which group one should discriminate in favour of.
I do indeed believe that there can be no absolute objective criteria according to which we can decide who are best qualified for a position. For some jobs one can get closer to that (flying a Boeing, say) than in others, but an objective standard does not exist. Pretending that there are such objective criteria merely helps to hide the prejudices of the powerful behind a façade of neutrality.
If we are striving for fairness, it requires, first, that we take into account the larger political, economic and historical context in which we make judgments about what is fair or not. This will inevitably require us to take note of past discrimination and racial injustice and to accept that such injustices must be addressed in some way or another. Second, it requires us to question anew the prevailing “norms and standards” and to ask anew what characteristics will best suit a specific job and who will contribute most to the well-being of an institution. This can only be done well, if we accept that different voices do not necessarily lead to a lowering of standards.
A little less certainty about things and a bit more critical reflection might help us to think about all the invisible criteria which have always helped to advantage the interests of the in-groups and exclude those who did not fit in.
