Joel Netshitenzhe
Article: Letter from Tshwane
29 September 2000
National integrity and national debate
Legality,
legitimacy and integrity of the state … free
speech and robust debate. Where does one draw
the line? Raising issues in this form does cause
apprehension. For South Africans rightfully are
wont to view with suspicion any perceived suggestion
at limiting basic rights.
Free
speech … free speech. But like the character
in one of Langenhoven’s short stories in
Die Erwe van onse Vaad’re, are we
not singing our way into the sea, oblivious of
the consequences of our actions?[i]
A few
recent incidents have brought this out in bold
relief.
For
a start, a question posed in Parliament occasioned
a bit of debate in the Presidency on how to respond
without compromising the integrity of the state.
This was about the so-called plot to undermine
the President: had he been briefed by intelligence
agencies, and were the alleged culprits subjected
to surveillance?[ii]
If the
President had done the right thing, to say he
could not report on operations of intelligence
agencies, the red herring would have been thrown
across the trail, and the issue kept alive ad
naseum. And so the best, but not necessarily
the right, thing to do was to reply directly to
the questions (no, to both) and then assert the
convention applicable in most democracies.
On the
last day of the COSATU Congress, there may have
been a need for a cherry on top of the wide-ranging
rational discussions and far-reaching decisions.
So, delegates are told that if the government
undermined workers’ rights – and it
could be assumed to be doing exactly this, through
GEAR and draft amendments to labour legislation
– then unto it would be done what was done
to the apartheid regime. This is a personal off-the-cuff
remark, and it does draw another cheer.[iii]
As such,
inadvertently (Tshwane hopes), the very foundation
of the legitimacy of this state is put to question.
Are we singing our way to self-destruction in
the name of free speech!
There
is a comparable incident: this time in the United
States of America. Addressing the US-SA Business
Council, a visiting South African Opposition leader
says some positive things about the country. But
he also articulates what amounts to reasons why
US investors should view the country with scepticism.[iv]
South
Africa is in a “downward slippage”,
and “government’s excuses range from
floods to falling gold and rocketing oil prices…”
There is some progress with privatisation, but
“…Telkom is allegedly abusing its monopoly
by refusing to offer additional bandwidth…”
etc, etc. The speech, by the way, is directed
at these very same potential investors.
By raising
the issues of legality, legitimacy and integrity
of the state, Tshwane is not seeking to impose
a false consensus among South Africans. It does
not have the desire nor the capacity to do this.
Rather,
we should debate the question whether there are
things to which all of us should collectively
pay allegiance, which we should protect and defend.
Is the state, founded on our democratic constitution,
one of those things? Should we glibly talk about
its overthrow? Should any of us, through our pronouncements
and actions, send a message that we question its
legitimacy and seek to undermine it – that
is, beyond normal partisan or civil society discourse?
Further,
is the government, once elected, “our government”,
irrespective of whether we voted for the parties
in political office, at national, provincial and
local levels? What are those things that we should
not do, as a measure of such acknowledgement?
Or will the informal protocols evolve with time
and experience?
An affirmative
answer to the last question is a view that most
in Tshwane would hold. One cannot decree or legislate
allegiance. Over time, the parameters of robust
debate in the context of a common statehood should
emerge, and sensitivities attached to this question
will hopefully resolve themselves.
This
does not mean that we should not be circumspect.
All states are battling with matters of legality,
legitimacy and integrity in the context of globalisation.
The more the world becomes joined up, the more
do these concepts become elusive.
South
Africa’s added challenge is that we seek
to build a nation and forge a common statehood
in a situation in which these attributes are themselves
under threat.
Ill-considered
statements affecting these issues may occasion
a cheer. But they can also add to the brittleness
of a state not only in gestation, but one faced
with the challenge of self-expression in a globalising
world. The noble principles bequeathed us by our
founding settlement may then just turn out to
be that unrecoverable spill in the slip betwixt
cup and lip.
Joel Netshitenzhe
CEO, Government Communications (GCIS)
Published
in Independent Newspapers
[i] CJ Langenhoven: Die Erwe van ons vaad’re (Short
Story: Oom Hendrik in die Spookhuis)
[ii] Question posed by Leader of the NNP/ Deputy Leader
of DA for President’s Oral Reply on 20/09/00
[iii] COSATU President, William Madisha: Closing Address to
the 7th COSATU Congress, 19/09/00
[iv] DP/DA Leader, Tony Leon: Address to US-SA Business
Council, 14/09/00
top |
