‘Comrades, my addiction to Leninist polemics is slowly coming under control.”
I grew up with the political language of the left. We took no prisoners. Polemics and facts were used to deride an opponent and their political argument. “Capitalist apologists” were reformist comrades in the trade union movement. “White liberal” meant racist protecting apartheid. “Sell-out” referred mostly legitimately to the act of collaborating with the state. “Children of the bourgeois” referred to comrades in Nusas, the white students’ union, who often went to prison and suffered. “Black petit bourgeois” referred to comrades in the black consciousness movement and later to some ANC leaders themselves. The worst one I used was “bourgeois housewives”, referring to the courageous women of the Black Sash. After insulting the person, we usually argued against their policy positions.
Today senior ANC leaders have dropped the facts necessary to answer a political position and only focus on destroying an opponent, whether they are right or wrong. Like Lenin, “I suffered from an infantile disorder.”
For the past 15 years I have felt uncomfortable with this language. Then I read George Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language. He says: “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible — Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air — this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging on the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial or shot in the neck … this is called elimination of unreliable elements.”
Language in politics often promotes intolerance or even legitimises violence. Intolerance or fear is often expressed by labelling an opponent as “racist”. “Elimination” has been used to argue against political opponents. The next step is violence.
Let’s take race and criticism. Often, when we have been legitimately criticised as a government, movement or as leaders, “race” became a convenient tool to discredit the argument without proper consideration of its merits. Particularly under former president Thabo Mbeki, rhetoric tended to identify criticism with racism. True, critics (irrespective of race) often disregard the legacy of white minority rule that we are striving to overcome. But race-based immunity from criticism provides a shelter for laziness and incompetence, lack of accountability, arrogance and corruption within the public service and private sector. It inhibits an honest discussion on race, racism and racial fears in our society. This is a discussion that must take place with the language and practice of respect for the dignity of every person.
The language of disrespect has descended from the highest levels of our leadership. This is not an excuse for a politics of lawlessness that speaks of “killing for our leaders”, a proposition that offends the Constitution and the values of the ANC. We can only learn from a mistake through its open and honest appraisal. The attacks on Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, supported by Mbeki, many of his ministers and his supporters in the ANC national executive committee, led to a disrespect for political differences that is unacceptable both in our movement and in society.
Tragically, the good people among us assisted this by remaining silent. Disrespect for political opponents and their opinions are manifested through language.
Citizens, organisations and our alliance partners have legitimately criticised our government and movement on some of these issues. They too were dismissed and some of our party leaders often used the lack of knowledge among cadres to attack people as “agents of imperialism”, “capitalism”, “third force”, “ultra-left” or “pharmaceutical stooges”. My comrades in the Treatment Action Campaign and I were often abused in this manner — privately and publicly. The language of our politics must change to allow people to disagree without labelling them. This will build democracy and earn the respect of our people.
Argument that relies on force or the threat of force as opposed to argument based on reason and proper factual justification often leads to dehumanisation of a political opponent or marginalised people. It can legitimise violence against them.
The language of violence, killing and weapons by political leaders can legitimise the extraordinary violence faced by all our people in their daily lives. South Africa has an unnatural death rate (including murder) that is eight times greater than the global average for men. Most reputable studies on crime conclude that it is not simply the volume of the crime but the extreme violence that accompanies it that makes South Africa exceptional.
The xenophobic terror that our country experienced during May last year demonstrated that this violent culture can be used in a politically lawless manner. This is one of the serious fears that people have when our leaders are seen to speak of opponents as “dogs” “cockroaches” or “traitors” very often married to the phrase “they will be eliminated”.
A language of “war”, “killing” and “dying” was a deeply difficult and uncomfortable part of our struggle against an illegitimate apartheid state with overwhelming military power. To use this language today is a failure to understand the pain our whole movement, led by Chief Albert Luthuli, suffered when deciding to turn to armed struggle. The extraordinary violence of the apartheid state in Sharpeville, Soweto, Bonteheuwel and many other places over decades led to a military response from our youth. This was exacerbated by Inkatha’s war against the United Democratic Front and the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng.
Though heroic in sacrifice, the militarism of our youth very often became a response that glamorised violence and one that saw it as a “quick fix”. Youth who missed that period without any proper study of our history can be misled.
Today our government and state is legitimate and one of our biggest challenges is the safety and security of all our people.
The breakaway led by Mosiuoa Lekota and Mbhazima Shilowa is one of the most painful experiences that our movement has faced. Most people feel a sense of loss and anger against those who split and even against the movement and our most senior leaders. This we must acknowledge.
We have to learn to debate the policies of the new party, not their personalities. Our movement and country face the danger of political lawlessness and disrespect. Whether in schools, homes, universities, places of worship, public transport, work places, streets, bars, clubs, shebeens — there will be pain, disagreement and anger. We are stronger than the breakaway in our leadership, policy and organising capacity and therefore we have a duty not to be arrogant.
ANC leaders and members must work everywhere to protect these smaller parties’ right to campaign freely. Emotions are high — we must work to calm them. This can only benefit the country and the ANC.
We must address those with whom we differ fundamentally in an honest manner and address ideas and policy with properly researched facts. We must learn that logic and facts are ultimately more powerful than rhetoric. Attacks on a person or their identity demeans all of us and, in particular, the person who uses offensive language. We are all hurt by the language of violence and authoritarianism.
Fearless respect for disagreement without threats of violence is the test of maturity, democracy and Ubuntu. Democratic culture is tested when we can respect the equality and freedom of those furthest away from us in political opinion, material interest, belief and conscience.
These are some of the ideas contained in a discussion document I wrote by agreement with senior ANC leaders, including two members of the national executive committee. I asked them to place it before the national executive committee and to publish it internally as a discussion document. I publish this now because the language of some respected leaders has become more careless.
I know it is difficult. Like an Âalcoholic, I struggle daily against my Leninist and Trotskyist training of referring to people as “renegades”, “political prostitutes” or simply “idiots” instead of using argument and evidence. But acknowledgment of a problem, though not enough, is a necessary start. My addiction to Leninist polemic and turgid “communist” prose is coming under control. Precise language means clarity of thought.
Democratic renewal of the ANC and social transformation cannot be separated from a culture of respect for the life, dignity and freedom of every individual. We must use the fourth democratic election to begin to rebuild the traditional values of respect for different ideas and a dignified contestation of political space.
I leave the last word to Leon Trotsky: “Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery, humiliation and disrespect for human dignity — one’s own and that of other people.”
Zackie Achmat, an ANC member, works with the Centre for Law and Justice