It is never a good sign when an organisation or individual completely
overreacts to perceived criticism. As the simmering discontent of South
Africa’s underclass boils over into open revolt and violence and as corrupt
shoot-to-kill cops are increasingly deployed in places as far flung as
Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg to protect the old and new elites from the
wrath of the dispossessed.
The hysterical and often undemocratic response of various ANC and SACP
structures to the First National Bank (FNB) advertising campaign is a
case in point.
The FNB campaign includes video clips of young South Africans
apparently speaking their minds. In one of these a participant says: “Stop voting for the same government in
hopes for change – instead, change your hopes to a government that has the same
hopes as us.”
The ANCYL and SACP joined the ANC in slamming the campaign, with
the league saying it was “deeply angered and disappointed” by the bank’s
“treacherous” campaign. On Sunday, a youth league spokeswoman said FNB had
failed in trying to “recreate an Arab Spring of some sort in South Africa” and
said it “uses children to make unproven claims of a government rife with
corruption. We call upon South Africans to close ranks against what is a
treacherous attack on our country”.
ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu said the ANC (which is never
directly mentioned in any of the videos) was “appalled” by the campaign in
which the ANC, its leadership and government were “under attack”. The campaign
was an “undisguised political statement that makes random and untested
accusations against our government in the name of discourse. While we believe
people are entitled to their views, we don’t accept that young kids should be
used as proxies to articulate political views espoused, as in the case of the
FNB advertisement”.
These vehement reactions to what appear to be rather mild
criticisms of the government and platitudes about one’s right to vote for the
party of one’s choice (widely accepted in any functioning democracy) are
curious for several reasons. First, whatever one might think of FNB and its
advertising campaign, the manner in which several ANC and SACP spokespersons conflated
the ANC with the state and with the country is worrying. The ANC is not the state. Neither is it the sole representative of the
South African people. South Africa, in the words of the Freedom Charter,
belongs to all who live in it – it does not belong to the ANC. Like any
political party, the ANC deserves to be praised when it does something well and
to be criticised when it abandons the poor it professes to love and serve. Second,
the statement that the FNB campaign is treacherous and tries to recreate the
Arab Spring, is anti-democratic and proto-fascist. There is nothing wrong with telling people they should refrain from
voting for the governing party. Voting
for whomever one pleases is at the heart of political freedom in a democratic
state. Every democratic election is based on fair and free contestation
between political parties in which we are all allowed to express our
preferences.
We are also all free to try to convince others to vote for the
ANC, to vote for the DA, or to vote for any other party for that matter.
It is probably not a great business model for a bank to get
involved in an advertising campaign that might alienate the majority of voters,
but if it does, there is nothing treacherous about it. If FNB had not pulled
the adverts I would have lauded the bank for putting its principles before
naked profits. Unfortunately the bank caved into political thugs.
The Arab Spring refers to various uprisings organised by oppressed
populations in countries where citizens did not enjoy political rights and
where democratic contestation and free and fair elections could not be held. To refer to an advertising campaign in
which a teenager urges people in South Africa to vote for the party of their
choice as an attempt to recreate an Arab Spring, suggests the ANCYL believes
South Africa is not a democracy, that its citizens are oppressed, do not enjoy
political rights and that they will never be allowed to change the government
by using their vote.
The ANCYL’s reaction is revealing rather more than it intended
about its own undemocratic tendencies. Pity Mthembu will not display the same
sense of outrage about this full-frontal attack on our democracy.
Whether one is a staunch ANC supporter or of the right wing
Freedom Front Plus, if one supports democracy one will not be appalled that an
institution has dared to criticise a political party. Only protofascists would
be appalled by the fact that a bank has dared to broadcast statements
criticising the government. Claiming the
sentiments are treacherous or that it is not legitimate to criticise the party
displays the kind of undemocratic intolerance that cannot be associated with a
party that supports democracy.
It is always better to ignore attacks that are far-fetched or
motivated by racism, hatred or a complete lack of information. If the criticism
is serious, one either responds to it by pointing out why and how it is wrong,
or one takes it on board and changes one’s behaviour. One does not tell those
who criticise they are committing treason or that they are attacking the state
merely because one happens (for the time being) to be the party of government.
The ANC reaction is a symptom of the fear and guilt that stalks the
political class in South Africa. As Marikana, De Doorns and Sasolburg have
shown, the poor, economically excluded and marginalised members of society have
not benefited as handsomely from the end of apartheid as the members of the old
(mostly white) and emerging (mostly black) middle classes.
While those
in the chattering classes squabble about silly adverts made to promote the
commercial interests of a big bank and argue whether these adverts exploit
children, many of those same children are dropping out of school or receiving a
third rate education because of the cowardice of politicians who are too scared
to take on a powerful union.
No comments:
Post a Comment