If the role of the state of the nation address (Sona) is to provide us with a window into the nation’s real state, it did this better than it has done before. It was not the words of the speech that did it, but the explosion of political debate that followed in its wake, which left us in no doubt of who and where we are as a nation.
If there is one thing the EFF does well it is blast holes in the notion of the rainbow nation by exposing it as a sham at critical moments. FW de Klerk’s statement that apartheid was not a crime against humanity, made in an interview more than a week ago, could not have been a better opportunity. And, like so often happens on occasions such as these, the ANC sprang to the defence of the indefensible, looking like the complicit fool in an absurd cover-up.
It was three days later that the ANC finally condemned the De Klerk statement. By then, the EFF — which should have looked like the antidemocratic spoilers of an event symbolic of national unity — had most people agreeing with their point. All except for some madcaps in the DA like MP Ghaleb Cachalia, who jumped into the debate to urge against the “cavalier” use of phrases such as “crime against humanity”. Within hours, the DA was in the thick of a debate with itself over whether apartheid was a crime against humanity or not. They cannot be helped.
To heighten the absurdity further, former president Thabo Mbeki, who had been seated next to De Klerk in the VIP gallery at the speech, informed us in an interview over the weekend that he asked De Klerk why he said what he did, and reported that De Klerk had told him he did not know the UN had drawn up a convention on apartheid back in 1973.
So here was the man who symbolised the grand SA social compact of 1994, for which he received a Nobel peace prize on which he dined out for 30 years earning millions on the international speakers’ circuit, confiding that while he thought apartheid was bad, it wasn’t as bad as all that.
As this unfolded a contingent of mainly youthful MPs showed their disregard for freedom of speech by stopping everybody else from having it. A clearer demonstration that the 1994 social compact was in serious trouble could not have appeared if God himself had been asked to send a sign.
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s state of the nation address, when it finally began, reiterated the importance of the 1994 compact and extolled the virtues of social compacting in general. He reminded us of Nelson Mandela’s stirring words that 1994 was a covenant to build a society “where all South Africans, black and white, will be able to walk tall, without fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity”.
These are important words and it was fitting that Ramaphosa should repeat them on a symbolic occasion like the state of the nation address. But it is even more important than repeating them that these words come to resonate in the everyday experience of all South Africans. We have moved very far from that sentiment and, since 1994, do not have enough — apart from some transient sporting victories — to continue to hold that together.
Ramaphosa’s tendency is to look towards more social compacting as the way to solve that problem. Compacting is clearly an important political process, especially where strong vested interests exist and no-one social actor is able to impose its will on society as a whole. The transformation of Eskom and the energy market, and negotiating a transition to a cleaner energy future, are a prime example. There can be no solution to these problems without a deal between the stakeholders. Admirably, Cosatu has given great impetus to this and it must certainly be a priority of Ramaphosa’s first term of office.
But if SA is to become a relatively successful society, it is the wider social covenant that needs attention. To deliver on that we need economic growth, an economy that can generate shared prosperity, life opportunities and empowerment for black people, the vast majority of whom remain excluded from the economy. For these things to take root we need a government that will use the resources of this country to govern in the interests not of the powerful vested interests that shaped the post-1994 political order but of those who do not have a seat at the social compacting table.
• Paton is editor at large.
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.