THE secretary-general of the African National Congress (ANC), Gwede Mantashe, called on ANC alliance members recently to stop hurling insults. Vulgarity has replaced robust engagement. This uncivil engagement has been long in the making, rooted in the past but shaped by decisions we make daily.
Arguably, this development is a consequence of the intellectual suppression under former president . Some of the best minds inside and outside the ANC withdrew from public engagement. The ANC was reduced to a one-opinion party with members’ engagement confined to echoing the president’s insights. Mbeki ensured there was enough for members to mull over.
The Letter from the President became obligatory reading but party members’ engagement was reduced to echoing its contents and sentiments. Ironically, he bemoaned the “startling and terrible relative absence of the black intelligentsia from the public discussion going on in our country about its transformation. There seems to be a paralysis of thought or a withdrawal from an open engagement of the burning issues of the day among this important section of our population, which is difficult to explain.”
So-called intellectuals, now paraded as the wise and brave among us, were not to be found. At best, they preferred to keep deafeningly silent. Some were active apologists of the madness of the time.
While they routinely paid homage to Nelson Mandela, they failed to defend him when he was roasted for expressing views different from Mbeki’s.
For his stance on HIV/AIDS, Mandela was accused of being the agent of pharmaceuticals and an icon who had become a villain.
Things changed with ’s sacking in 2005. Mbeki’s rule was challenged openly, triggering a protracted battle between Mbeki and Zuma supporters. Verbal abuse became a form of engagement, subsiding slightly after the battle of Polokwane. Mbeki’s defeat was engineered by ordinary folks, not the wise who emerged suddenly from the bunkers.
With Mbeki defeated, the so-called intellectual class can no longer claim the public space or dictate the terms of engagement. The likes of Max du Preez, Mamphela Ramphele, Kader Asmal, Njabulo Ndebele, Jonathan Jansen, and Mark Gevisser must now compete with Zwelinzima Vavi and Julius Malema. The space is now overcrowded.
But all is not lost. Jansen recently pointed out that Julius Malema is “unlike the impression I think in the media, he is an extremely smart person …. His ability to synthesise a fairly complex set of discussions that we had was amazing. I wish I had some professors who could do that.” Jansen should consider appointing Malema to teach a course on critical engagement and replace his professors.
On the positive side, the public space has been democratised. Unfortunately, this democratisation has coincided with its vulgarisation. The new occupants are diverse, and use diverse approaches and idioms to advance their cause.
Ordinary folks and workers embark on mass action, the educated class resort to e-mails, phone-ins, and signature campaigns to register protest. The differences are about style. Signature campaigns have the same chilling, intimidating effect. Like mass protest, signature campaigns are usually directed at an individual or institution. The educated class approach is most acceptable among their kind.
Contributing to this public vulgarity is the human tendency to push the boundaries of engagement. This practice was the preserve of artists and cartoonists.
But with public space being democratised, these groups cannot claim copyright on mocking, insulting, hurting, insulting and denigrating others. They can expect others to respond in kind.
We may have to ask ourselves if it is not about time we recrafted the terms of public engagement. We need to find a way to be robust but not disagreeable. We seem to be sliding into “a market of ideas in which bad ideas flourish and good ones die”. Our tolerance of vulgarity legitimises it. Insult does not invite rational engagement. Our silence condones it.
-Seepe is a higher education and strategy consultant.