The people who shape our debates are right to denounce the moral failings of elites. But they should also look at their own lack of a moral compass, which makes it easier for high-ups to behave badly.
In a month in which a respected former finance minister’s meetings with the Guptas and the VBS Mutual Bank report raised justifiable questions about the morals of those who take political and economic decisions, perhaps the most immoral statement passed almost without comment.
It was issued by the EFF before Nhlanhla Nene testified at the Zondo commission of inquiry. The key sentence declared: “The EFF is aware of many other dealings and dark secrets that compromises Nhlanhla Nene and will reveal all if he does not voluntarily step down as a minister of finance.”
It does not take an ethics degree to work out that this is a deeply immoral statement. If the EFF knows of Nene’s “dealings and dark secrets”, it must make these public. It has no business using the information to get Nene to do what it wants him to do — and even less business keeping silent because he did what the statement said he should do. This is political blackmail. Information purported to show bad behaviour is used not to enlighten the public or enforce the law, but to allow some to wield power over others.
The EFF remains popular in the media and among commentators despite questions about its links to tobacco companies, the VBS bank and municipal tender committees. And so its statements are less likely to be called out than those of its less fashionable rivals. This moral double standard is not peculiar to this country.
It is, of course, possible that the EFF has no knowledge of any “dark secrets”. In that case it has also fallen foul of the law and morality by slandering a public figure. So, whatever it does or does not know about Nene, the statement shows a shocking disregard for morality and law. And yet it passed almost unnoticed. There was no public outcry, no demand that the EFF be forced to say what it knows or pay damages for libelling Nene. Few seem to find anything wrong with a party boasting that it has no duty to the country or the courts to say what it claims it knows about wrongdoing.
There are two — equally shocking — explanations for this moral blindness. First, that just about everyone in the public debate is so morally punch drunk that they don’t know any more that it is immoral to hush up “dark secrets” to fight political battles. The second, which is more likely, is that morality in our debates depends not on what is said and done but who says and does it. Most people who are taken seriously are quick to light on the moral failings of those they oppose, ignoring the lapses of those they support.
The EFF remains popular in the media and among commentators despite questions about its links to tobacco companies, the VBS bank and municipal tender committees. And so its statements are less likely to be called out than those of its less fashionable rivals. This moral double standard is not peculiar to this country. In the US, it does not matter what Supreme Court judges have done to women as long as they vote the way the right wing wants them to vote. Many of the “great and the good” overlook serial moral lapses in a president as long as he supports cutting their taxes.
But that does not make moral blindness here any less of a problem, particularly since it must be one reason some in politics and business think they can get away with just about anything: exposure can always be dismissed as the evil scheming of the other guys. Until our debate can quickly spot — and condemn — public immorality, regardless of which side the perpetrator is on, moralising about public figures will remain a weapon of political war, not a way of making the country a better place.
• Friedman is research professor with the humanities faculty of the University of Johannesburg.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.