Why appointing Tony Leon would be a slap in the face of the poor

TONY Leon’s  nomination as an ambassador to the US must be situated in the broader trajectory of South Africa’s liberal democratic project. The 1994 transition, while ending formal apartheid, created a constitutional order that preserved existing economic power structures under the guise of non-racialism and individual rights. 

The liberal constitutionalism championed by the DA has proven adept at containing radical change. It offers robust protections for civil liberties (important gains, to be sure) but has also shielded property relations and corporate capital from the kind of mass redistribution needed to uproot apartheid’s legacy. 

Both the DA and the ANC largely operate within this paradigm – fiercely debating policy details while sharing a fundamental commitment to the neoliberal status quo​. Indeed, over the past three decades, we’ve seen a striking elite convergence: former liberation movement cadres and erstwhile liberal opponents mingling in the same cocktail circuits, trading cabinet posts and ambassadorial gigs.

It was no accident that the ANC government sent Tony Leon to Argentina as an ambassador shortly after he stepped down as DA leader​ – a gesture that symbolised the incorporation of the old white opposition into the new multiracial elite. Leon’s return as a potential U.S. ambassador continues that story: a convergence of interests where yesterday’s foes unite to manage an unjust order rather than transform it.

From a Black Consciousness and Pan-Africanist perspective, this liberal elite pact is precisely what our liberation heroes warned against. Steve Biko cautioned that “integration” (when pursued on white terms) could become a trap that co-opts black aspirations into a system still defined by whiteness and inequality. 

Today, we see a superficially integrated ruling class – black and white politicians alike – that largely serves global capital and local white-owned industry, while the masses remain dispossessed. The DA loves to wrap itself in the language of the Constitution, “rule of law,” and “orderly governance.” Yet what has this meant for the Azanian working class and dispossessed?

It has meant patience and sacrifices urged upon the poor, while the wealthy consolidate their gains under the protection of law. The Pan-Africanist lens reminds us that true decolonisation was not achieved in 1994; South Africa remains tied to neocolonial patterns – its economy dominated by Western interests and its foreign policy often pulled between loyalty to the African continent and pressure to appease Euro-American powers. A figure like Tony Leon tilts the balance decidedly toward the latter: the imperial core’s preferences over Pan-African solidarity.

Even the ANC, in its quest to be the “broad church” of all South Africans, has too often prioritised elite reconciliation over revolutionary change. We recall how the ANC under Mandela and Mbeki reassured whites and investors – from retaining apartheid-era economists to including the old anthem “Die Stem” in a composite national anthem.

These concessions were aimed at stability, but they also signaled a deal: political office for the black majority, economic power stays largely with the (mostly white) elite. In such a context, the DA and ANC start to look like two wings of a pro-capital, centrist consensus, squabbling over patronage but aligned on fundamentals. The DA’s touting of Tony Leon as ambassador – and the possibility the ANC government might actually consider it – shows how interchangeable the elites have become. 

It’s a far cry from the vision of thinkers like Ali Shariati, the Iranian revolutionary who railed against the “Westoxified” local elites in the Global South who became administrators of imperial interests. Shariati’s call for a spiritual and cultural reawakening – a revolution of values to overthrow both foreign domination and domestic tyranny – resonates as we witness these tepid power games. Where is the moral compass in our politics? Certainly not in the self-congratulatory liberalism that anoints a man like Tony Leon as an ambassadorial savior.

 The DA’s move to elevate Tony Leon is not a bold innovation but a tired repetition of politics-as-usual. It reflects a poverty of imagination among South Africa’s establishment. When faced with crises – like frosty relations with the U.S. after our government took principled stances on Palestine or dared foster BRICS ties – their impulse is to retreat to the old comfortable figureheads who reassure the empire that nothing truly radical will transpire in Pretoria.

Leon is being sold as the ultimate problem-solver, the wise elder who will restore luster to South Africa’s image abroad. Yet to the oppressed majority, this is a slap in the face. It says: your liberation can wait; first we must placate Washington. It says that those who defended the status quo for decades – who resisted calls for economic justice – will not only escape accountability but be rewarded with plum posts.

We reject this cynical narrative. True merit in a society like ours would mean elevating those who have fought for the people, not those who fought to keep the old order intact. A genuine commitment to good governance would prioritize dismantling structural racism and inequality, not merely installing a different manager in the same old mansion.

And an authentic diplomacy worthy of a democratic South Africa would project the voices of the grassroots, the workers, the landless, and the youth on the world stage – not the polished platitudes of a career politician with an uncritical affinity for the West. 

South Africa’s destiny should not be to play perpetual junior partner to Washington, no matter who the ambassador is. Our destiny, as envisioned by Pan-Africanists and revolutionaries, is to chart an independent course, speaking truth to power globally and pursuing justice at home.

The campaign for Tony Leon’s ambassadorship is a symbol of liberal complacency. It is a comfort with mere symbolism over substance – swapping out envoys while the neocolonial scaffolding remains firmly in place. As citizens invested in a real liberation project, we must challenge not only this appointment but the entire mindset that produced it.

We must insist that South Africa’s representatives, at home and abroad, be accountable to the cause of liberation – a cause that neither begins nor ends with polite diplomacy in the corridors of Washington.

As the saying goes, “no masters, no messiahs.” The people’s emancipation will not be delivered by suave diplomats or elite pacts; it will be won by the unwavering struggle of the people themselves, united in consciousness and action. 

The sooner we recognise gestures like the DA’s for what they are – elite musical chairs on the deck of a profoundly unjust society – the sooner we can get back to the real work of decolonisation and African unity. South Africa deserves better than a recycled emissary of the old guard. It deserves a new generation of revolutionary voices unwilling to “fight back” against change, but instead fighting forward for the truly free and egalitarian Africa we have yet to achieve.

Khan is a fellow at the Centre forHumanities Research at the Universityof the Western Cape.