Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya
Fikile-Ntsikelelo Moya
I have always found it curious just how many of the big political decisions in our country are not based on any known argument for those of us affected by them to decide whether they are good or bad.
Take the decision by the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal to recall premier Senzo Mchunu and replace him with his namesake, Willies Mchunu.
According to the party’s own official statement, the decision – which it says was the outgoing premier’s – “followed a detailed assessment of the state of governance in the province and extensive consultation with the national executive committee”.
This may be great for the party and alliance unit, but it tells citizens nothing about why the person who was their premier is no longer their premier.
The same applies for the stated reasons for choosing the man to replace him. “We have chosen comrade Willies Mchunu because of his seniority, experience and skills demonstrated over many years of service in government and our movement in general.”
You have to wonder when this realisation that Willies is senior and experienced came up, and if this means the party is admitting it was an error to not make him premier all along.
I am not surprised or disappointed. It has become a feature of our political life to confuse preferences for arguments.
I wish the two Mchunus well in their next chapters.
It is common in South Africa to hear people talk about who they want or prefer as the next president of the country or their party. In many instances, the conversation does not go beyond the names of their preferences.
It is as if just saying you want a black person or a woman, or a person from a certain geographical area of the country, is enough of an argument, when it is clearly not.
This is the case because too many of the big South African issues today are driven by passion rather than reason.
The Vuwani-Malamulele issue is one such case. According to media reports, the big issue is that some people do not want to be led by Shangaans. They, however, do not feel they have the obligation to say why being led by Shangaans will be such a bad thing that it makes them want to burn down schools.
They just don’t like it, and that is where the conversation must end. It cannot be right or entertained that people can just say they don’t like a government decision, so it must be reversed.
I am convinced that some people believe that democracy means not having to make an argument for their planned course of action. When they are in government, they assume that being in the majority is enough for them to decide on anything without having to give or justify their reasons.
The people adopt the same attitude, arguing that the government must just concede to their demands and desires because “they are the people” that democracy refers to when it describes itself as “government based on the will of the people”.
Clearly, both attitudes are false. The government must as a matter of law not act arbitrarily when using its powers. Section 33 of the constitution states that “Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair”.
This point is often missed by those who incorrectly think that taking a popularly elected government to court is to rule by stealth or, to use their favourite phrase, using the courts as a counter-majoritarian tool.
It should be patently obvious to anyone that in a democracy the government cannot be as paternalistic as to make as its most final argument “because I say so”. Equally, citizens must not behave like brats at a mall and throw tantrums because they did not get their way.
But to get there, we must also encourage a culture of meaningful engagement and debate and be prepared to concede some or all of our argument if the other person is better. I know I am being too optimistic here. Too many of us think losing an argument is a defeat rather than an opportunity to acquire insights we did not have before.
Not debating the pros and cons for public policy and action deepens with each episode of meaningless dialogue. Those who have the loudest voice win the day, while society is left intellectually poorer and increasingly volatile.
I am convinced that some of the seeds of the easy violence we see in our country is an outcome of a culture of meaningless dialogue, which makes people with grievances, genuine or not, feel unheard and ignored. And that is a grand pity.