Evoking history may be a good beginning for the DA

It may sound absurd yet it is true, the DA strengthened its support base by attracting white right wings that are now entrenched into the political business of the party. It would be naïve of any observant or participant in the South African politics to believe that when the alliance failed all the NNP members migrated with Marthinus Van Schalwyk to join the ANC.  

Politically, blacks are not easily taken for a ride. SA political history is an attestation to this fact, all homelands failed because black South Africans understand how to make political choices. Some choices may have been questionable but in the main they have been consistent with South African political history. Blacks understand that DA was an alliance between the New Nationalist Party, Freedom Alliance and the DP; also they understand that the failure of the alliance arrived as a result of the rejection by the DP to rename some of the roads after Mandela and De Klerk in Cape Town. This is subject to corrections: Peter Marais of NNP wanted to name Adderley Street as Nelson Mandela Avenue and Wale Street as FW de Klerk. This proposal did not sit well with the DP which felt proper consultation was not made. This started the rift in the alliance then the seams started cracking which led to finger pointing and exchange of insults between Leon and Marthinus. In fact what could have been a good gesture and a great political opportunity turned out to be the bitter ending of the Alliance. This opportunity should have been exploited as it could have summarized the DP and NNP as progressive forces that were committed in a non-racial inclusive society but they missed the prospect. The question therefore is ‘if they frustrated such gesture what else can they frustrate in the new South Africa were they given a chance to run the country?’

Again the DA’s commitment to liberal principles became questionable on November 14 when the parliament passed the Civil Union Bill into law. As a liberal party it was mandatory of them to be seen to be unleashed. Instead they took a weak position to let their members to vote according to their conscience. This could mean one thing; they did not want to upset their conservative component of the party. Democratic Alliance is a party at odds with itself; it cannot flounce like a horse or stand in front of the mirror proudly to enjoy its look. This contributes a lot to its failure to attract black majority. 

Ideology is what defines any political party; it is the basis from which they attract support. It defines who they are and what they stand for. Civil union between two people is a private matter regardless of sexes who decide to enter into it. This bill gives individuals power to decide how they want to be seen and with whom they want to be seen with.  It is a truly liberal undertaking by the current government but it was difficult of the party that claims to strive for an open opportunity society to openly support it. The DA claims that “In such a society, everybody has the opportunities and the space to shape their own lives, improve their skills and follow their dreams. The government’s key role is to expand and promote equal opportunities for all. People are not held back by arbitrary criteria such as gender, religion, or colour, or the prejudice of those in power. In the open, opportunity society, outcomes are linked to opportunity, effort and ability, not special favours dispensed by a ruling clique in the ruling party”. Could it mean that these are just words real concrete plans and missions are hidden behind?  These are some of the questions that frustrate many black people who want to join the party.

In addition, the position of the DA on recent Land reform propositions leaves much to be desired. After the land summit this is the position adopted by the party “The DA is fully in favour of a sustainable, equitable and just land reform programme. However, we reject most of the recommendations that emanated from the recent Land Summit”. Furthermore the party maintained “The DA believes that the land reform programme can be speeded up by allowing for more market, less state – not the other way round. As such, we commit ourselves to the constitutional provisions bearing on land reform and the retention of the willing buyer, willing seller principle”. Remember this is the party that refused gesture by NNP to rename street by country’s freedom icons De Klerk and Mandela, a liberal party that failed to stand for its ideology on Civil Union Bill and how can it now be trusted on land question? 

There is sometimes inconsistency in the manner in which the DA deals with some of the most sensitive nail biting political questions of our life time. To appeal to the majority the DA took the historical route yet on questions that affect the majority the party just ‘glide’ over history not considering the details of what transpired in order to understand an appropriate remedy. Such historical position makes them naïve over the ambiance of the majority on land questions. Perhaps what the DA has to do is to find few old people who were direct victims of land grabbing and land removals. These people do not just trivialize the land question; the hurt on their faces is still there.  Black history, until the recent past, has always been oral therefore many younger generations that many would like to call ‘the born frees’ understand what happened. They may not openly show their anger and frustration but least we should be fooled that they are not. 

The DA needs to stop talking about the constitution as the body of truth: a God prearranged document. It was created by fallible beings that may have deficiencies like all other mortals. South Africa’s constitution is a most liberal constitution but it is the supreme law that its coming had to suppress and squeeze the majority into accepting the status quo. As a nation we can no longer pretend that all went right during negotiations. Black majority were given a raw deal, liberation movement’s negotiators failed dismally to get a better deal for black people. Therefore in the spirit of Nation Building before it all erupt a balanced solution need to be navigated. Already there is, yet negligible, reverberation as it happened in Zimbabwe over land question. It is therefore imperative and mandatory of the current leadership to prevent a foreseeable threat to the future peace and stability. 

Cosatu has already raised eyebrows over the land question. The constitutionality of Cosatu’s argument is a debate for another day but the concern here is that they have raised the issue then who else out there has the same feelings? Cosatu articulated its position through Malikane “By sunset clauses we mean the package of compromises that were entered into pre-1994, at the centre of which is the protection of private property rights, which limits the democratic state from decisively dealing with the legacy of colonialism in terms of property ownership”. He also expanded “Cosatu is of the view that section 25 of the Constitution needs to be amended, to make expropriation along the Freedom Charter lines easy and not be subject to such conditionalities (sic) as currently is the case in the Constitution.” This surely a potential threat to the future national security especially if poorly handled. The main responsibility of the current political office bearers is  to maintain peace and stability to ensure that future generations enjoy the same, if not better economic opportunities, freedom and civil liberties.

The DA needs to create a truly liberal open opportunity society that is truly based on substantive touchable liberal ideology. Some parts of the constitution especial on land question are anti-liberal. How do you exercise your individual rights in the space that is not mutual inclusive?  Basically the current constitution says through your own money(taxes) you will buy the land from the willing seller. Since the compromises are part of the South African political as well as economic landscape; will country’s land owners compromise to sell their land at a compromised value? Guess not, therefore who is fooling who here? 

  

Evoking history by the DA needs to be holistic; it should not be the history that favours the party. Its prominence should be around how it relates to a creation of non racial inclusive society. It will also be appealing if it mention a few liberal activists who were jailed for fighting apartheid if there are any.

It is indeed true that disgruntled members of the United Party, in 1959, seceded from the party when it endorsed non-reforms on land policy. It is also true those members, under the leadership of Dr Jan Stytler, formed Progressive Party. However, substantively, it is not clear how their breakaway group assisted black majority. Of course they opposed apartheid and took a stand on constitutional reforms which included a stand an entrenched federal state and free market enterprise. 

It was until 1961 that a significant shift from the United Party was observed.  Mrs Helen Suzman fought against whole lot of political inaptness. She meaningfully placed herself in harm’s way. She opposed racial discrimination, pass laws, job reservation, group areas act and many more remorseless laws. Nevertheless, what stands out about her was her political and humane compassion towards the oppressed. It is on record that she visited prisons to assess the conditions under which prisoners especially political prisoners were subjected to. She just didn’t visit prisons but also fought for better prison conditions. However, who did not do the above among liberation movements at the time?

The DA has to be decisive; it should either nurse the current white folks who by default joined the DA through strings of alliances or risk being seen as a great well oiled machine loaded with ‘possible weapons of mass destruction ready to compromise everyone who buys the machine”. It is time to play hard ball, it may be wise to study the ANC but getting support from black people has nothing to do with the ANC but entirely depends on how the party project itself. The DA needs to avoid being defined by the ANC because anyone who controls your image has the power over your future. Again the DA needs to start having honest, strong but humble debates around issues that affects people and stop taking pictures with poor people like the ANC do. Many black people are complaining about this. Who wants to appear on television in mud or rusted zinc shack? It is surprising that many of the country’s top political leaders do it. 

The DA has the potential to run this country in the future but it has a serious image problem and a serious double standards issues. Evoking history is a great beginning but history has a way of damaging the present if poorly handled. Honest debate that speaks to the real concerns of the majority may assist the DA. Mostly the DA needs to stand their ground on liberal principles as a liberal party; conservative elements must shape up or ship out. It should be about the party nothing else but about the party; no narrow politics that nurses hard liners hiding under liberal blanket. 

Mthandeni Mhlongo-MA (University of Natal)

25/04/2013

Favorite quotation: History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.