Of centrism, the middle ground and appeasement

I’m a child of the 90s, the halcyon years of ideological centrism.  My political awakening occurred amid the stability and prosperity that the likes of Clinton, the Bushes and Blair brought to their polities. 

Locally, there is no question that observing the steady hands of Mandela and Mbeki, steering the country through its critical and turbulent formative years, left an indelible mark on me. 

So, I respect those who play that role as competently, and ethically as they did, their flaws notwithstanding.

I understand that many wise leaders may not be centrists, but they may embrace the mantle of centrism, as a tactical response to situations where the balance of power is tenuous, the risk/return equation to radical moves is unfavourable or the collateral damage is indefensible. This may lead them to compromise or bide, their time as their judgement dictates is the most reasonable course of action. 

Far from this being weakness, as populist sentiment would have it, it is profound strength, and it is among the hallmarks of wisdom.

Yet centrism, as an ideology, has always troubled me.

To locate one’s entire political philosophy around a triangulation of opposing ideologies is hardly compelling, let alone inspiring to me. Surely, one must stand for something! 

In this regard, I resonate with the words of the Lord Jesus to the Laodicean church who said, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!”

Yet, more than once, I have found myself having to defend my non-centrist credentials to my more radical interlocutors. So, what is new?

You can be sure that I subscribe to neither tribal nor ideological parochialism.

To the charge of biblical parochialism, however, I am guilty as charged.

I do stand for something. I stand for “whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy.”

This why it is as easy as it is for me to reject the singing of songs about killing people, with the contempt it deserves. 

There are cases that may test one’s powers of judgement. This is not one of them. Even children can handle this one with ease. 

I am not claiming to possess special knowledge of the truth, apart from the conscience given to all people. Neither I am I claiming to be always right. I believe the truth exists, that it matters profoundly and is worthy of pursuing above all other interests, under the canopy of love. Even if I see it through a glass, darkly.

To the ideologue, ideology is truth. It is beyond critique because it is the very lens through which he processes reality. I subscribe to the idea of an objective truth that interrogates all ideologies. 

The tribalist must genuflect at the feet of the tribe. Its norms, aspirations, grievances, perspectives, and interest are his loadstar. They trump all. He must sacrifice everything for its approval, because for all intents and purposes, to him the tribe is the truth. 

I speak of the tribe in broad terms here, as any group that provides an essential sense of belonging and purpose. 

I live within groups, of course. Like all of us. But you can be sure that I guard my prerogative to keep in step with the group, only within the umbrella of truth and no further, with my very life. 

I have accepted ostracism from the group as sometimes a necessary price to pay if needs be. I have the scars to prove it. 

Of course, this also applies to the tribe, literally. I love who I am. I am a black Xhosa man, and my identity is deeply steeped in my biological and cultural moorings. I identify with it profoundly and I am deeply affected by the story of my people, their sufferings, failures, and triumphs. How can I deny myself! 

I know what it feels like to experience racism, both the subtle and overt variety. I am old and well-travelled enough to know the false stigma of being a black man in the world. 

I have wept many tears about our plight in the world. 

If you have followed my writings over the years, you will know that I have never taken racism with equanimity and neither have I shied from condemning it, at great cost sometimes. 

Importantly, I hate racism not just because it is an affront to my sense of tribal solidarity. I hate it firstly because it is wrong. 

In this sense, it is by an “accident” of history that I have personal and intimate identification with its injustice as it relates to anti-black racism. 

That means I hate it just as much even when my “tribe” is not its victim. Even when my tribe happens to be the perpetrator. 

Yet my people and their culture are not the truth. I happily diverge and converge with tribal sensibilities according to the testimony of my conscience. 

All cultures together, like a multicoloured tapestry, are a taste of the multifaceted glory of the God and I am grateful for the ray that my heritage shines in this spectacular kaleidoscope. 

I am not ashamed to say that I love all ethnicities of the world. None excluded. 

I love the Afrikaners, the English, the Zulus, the Sotho, the Shona, the Ibo, the Palestinians and the Jews. I wish peace, safety and prosperity for all of them. May they all thrive!

Love compels me to try and understand the world from their perspective as well. Within the parameter of truth, of course. 

In this regard I am guided by the golden rule, which says, “in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

So, if you see me taking a stand for or against something dear to you, consider that I may be taking a stand not based on the way the wind happens to be blowing, but on principles and convictions you may not share with me. 

Understand that my allegiance is to the truth first, and not to your tribe, or even mine for that matter. 

When you see me as an appeaser, a radical or troublemaker (believe me, I have adorned all these epithets at sundry times), as much I respect your prerogative to have an opinion about me, I would also implore you to make sure that it is not informed by a mirror of values, assumptions, and standards that you have superimposed upon me.

And rest assured that I will not be deterred.

A new people emerge

Events of 2019, its notable triumphs and the passing way of several iconic figures, have starkly illuminated that us South Africans, though we are often not be conscious of it or are loath to admit it, truly love each other.

Our colourful and tragic history has done a number on us. Without our permission, it has surreptitiously knit us together with mystic chords sturdier than all mighty torrents that have sought to ravage it.

Time has made a nation of us. We are more than our laws and fledgling institutions. Through many battles fought with and against each other, a miracle is occurring - a people are emerging.

On a stroll down the annals of history, one encounters an unexpected sense of kinship with fellow compatriots, nurtured by these very mountains, hills and vast open spaces we call our own, of diverse hues and times. A kinship attested to by an eerie accuracy with which they describe a South Africa we recognise all too well.
The great Jan Smuts is one of them. These words he wrote in 1935, I'm sure would resonate with fellow South Africans from deep into the 18th century until now.

He says:

"It is the history of this country that inclines us to optimism. South Africa has passed through dark and difficult passages in her history: more than once she has stood face to face with stark disaster. For generations she has been tried and tested as perhaps no other young country of our day has been tested, but a kind Providence has never quite forsaken her...Here we have seen how in a nation's story good comes out of evil; how goodwill in the end smooths out the tangles and mistakes; how an era of construction follows destruction and bitter struggles of races and war"

Again, he poignantly captures the irrepressible South African spirit in these sunny musings, one that echoes throughout the cavernous corridors of its contested history:

"Whatever our difficulties and our problems, there is nothing defeatist about the South African outlook. There is hopefulness, buoyancy, resilience everywhere. Not that we are out of the wood; not that we are not oppressed with difficulties and problems enough, but that they do not unduly depress us."

These thoughts flow from a nascent glow of optimism, with whispers that we're truly stepping into a new hopeful epoch. The air is pregnant with an unmistakable assurance that the long and harsh winter is now rapidly receding.

A new day is dawning.

Can you not see it?

New versus old identity politics

The recent emergence of identity politics as a topical issue is an important development. It is, however,  nothing new but merely an elucidation of how politics has generally been conducted for generations.

For the purpose of distinguishing the different versions of these politics, it is helpful to entitle the more recent variety the new identity politics.

Old identity politics were located within socially and economically embedded identity hierarchies, created and nurtured over the past few centuries.

According to this hegemonic cultural paradigm that has been receding over recent decades, human dignity, quite crudely, was conceived of in terms of the human phenotype as the absurd de-facto measure.

Social and legal status, in many parts of the world, and the economic privilege flowing from them, cascaded downwards along a value spectrum that diminished according to the shade of pigmentation.

Though the political power that created that world is generally receding , that world is still with us and will continue to be so for some time yet.

It is understandable, given the quantum of time involved, why the lingering identity constructs and their intrinsic hierarchies came to be invisible to their beneficiaries over time, in plain sight.

After all a fish might be forgiven for failing to see water after a while.

That is why some might see the new identity politics, perhaps disingenuously, as the genesis of identity politics instead of a rebellion against extant identity realities.

The present generation must navigate the fraught terrain of highlighting existing identity-based socioeconomic realities, with the risk that this political stance might be confused with defending the idea of identity politics albeit with reversed roles.

I hope this alluring trope misrepresents those in the main stream of the new identity politics. 

Yes, because of the past and the present it created, there is an uncomfortable but necessary emphasis on identity. After all the doctor can only cure those ailments that are identified.

This time around, however, the end-game rather than racial dominance, must be the removal of the cancer of the structural identity imprints in our country and world.

Such a world is possible only if justice and equity are deemed worthwhile pursuits rather than burdensome inconveniences or instruments of cheap political point-scoring.

Otherwise we risk abandoning the noble quest for a world shaped by universal values for the benefit of all, for one characterised by a perpetual contest between various identity constructs. One that ebbs and flows according to who happens to possess sociocultural power at a given moment in history

Identity politics are dangerous precisely as they tend to operate within the confines of an insular zero-sum moral framework that is impervious to persuasion by superior moral logic, particularly when that logic emanates exogenously.

This is because according to identity politics, identity is the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong.

Of course, the preponderance of this Manichean logic in an unavoidably diverse country and world can only know dominance not by transcendent values but that of one identity group by another.

My point here is that those who, like Ms Helen Zille, are given to endless pontifications about the rise of identity politics, must reflect on why the credibility of their supposed moral stand is being questioned.

Perhaps it may become clear that  there is a marked difference between a principled stand against the use of identity as proxy for human dignity and the prerogative to question the immorality of identity hierarchies of the past continuing unhindered in their present status as reliable indicators of present socioeconomic privilege.

Strange and uncertain times

History records that a young Abraham Lincoln, brimming with idealism and ambition, rued the times in which he was born. 

He peered back, it is said, with longing eyes toward an earlier age that unfairly conferred upon the likes of George Washington, an enviable stage for their bounteous talents - a heroic age of a revolutionary war and the birthing of a new nation.

We might surmise that the young Lincoln succumbed to the familiar tendency to look at the past and its heroes through a lens sanitised by a rose-tinted hue of quixotic romanticism.

Perhaps some of those who, like me, came of age after WWII, a time that future generations may call Pax Americana, share some of his restless sense of injustice. As if robbed of a rightful platform for our repressed heroism.

Lincoln and his generation would soon discover just how ghastly war can be, when their turn to emulate their departed heroes was abruptly thrust upon them.

Ours is a lamentably unheroic age. One afflicted by not merely the dearth of great men and women but, quite tellingly, the perverse unappreciation for the very idea of greatness.

Lingering memories of two of the most gruesome wars in history and the implicit deterrence of nuclear weaponry have produced an unusually long absence of open war between the great powers. Something that may unnerve the discerning among us.

In this regard, our times are not unlike the relative peace that descended upon the world following the Congress of Vienna, that concluded the disruptive Napoleonic Wars. One that reigned until WWI, almost a century later, with the only notable interruption being the Franco-Prussian war of 1871.

Pax Britannica, so called, came to a rapid conclusion as a result of the failure to resolve the familiar contestation that tends to eventuate between rising and incumbent world powers.

We live now before the looming shadow of the same spectre.

Furthermore, the extended peace of our times has come with unparalleled global prosperity. So many of us have been lavished with the type of ease that has rendered virtues of courage, honour and nobility dispensable luxuries, strange relics of a charming but long departed romantic age.

War is an unmitigated horror, the ugliest expression of the worst in humanity. Yet there is something about it that makes it a crucible for greatness, disinterring long-buried virtues of honour, humanity and courage, perhaps out of the sheer impulse for collective survival.

This may be the reason the qualities of many of those we consider great often emerge before the haunting spectre of encroaching apocalypse.

Ours, on the other hand, is the age of narcissism, defined by a generational self-indulgence that seems to set us indisputably apart from bygone eras.

I never cease to be amazed by just how unimportant history seems to so many of my contemporaries.

This may have to do with our staple diet premised on the supposed indispensability of constant entertainment and distraction.

So myopically obsessed with the present we have become, even events from a mere decade ago occupy a remote place in the contemporary memory bank. Ominously, that time-span might be erring on the generous side.

This is disconcerting for numerous reasons, not least the missed opportunity to develop a broad and grounded perspective that correctly contextualizes contemporary events.

What seems ubiquitous is a mind-set that inordinately magnifies current newspaper headlines. Such that we have become akin to a bipolar society, given to oscillation between soaring euphoria and morose despair and usually nothing in-between. As informed by the latest soundbite on the news cycle.

We resemble those who have been enslaved by the tyranny of now.

Thus, we have been robbed not only of a strategic perspective, but our temporal parochialism represents a tragic squandering of all the accumulated lessons of the ages that seem to exist beyond the scope of contemporary consciousness.

One hopes we do not live to ratify the age-old aphorism brilliantly captured by George Santayana:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned repeat it.”

It is precisely this myopic preoccupation that misses the winds of change currently blowing in the geopolitical environment.

Pax Americana is now rapidly retreating beyond the sunset to be united with the grand eras of ages past. It was no Pollyanna, of that we can be sure. But few epochs rival the peace and prosperity it brought about.

Former president Obama has rightly described these as “strange and uncertain times”.

He captured thus a nagging feeling that we have entered into an unfamiliar and unpredictable epoch. One that elicits thoughts of disquietude much more than it does those of hopeful anticipation.

Perhaps it was too idealistic to imagine that the curtain would never close on so optimistic a period, where the universal triumph of freedom seemed within reach for so many of us. One that oversaw the triumph over the tyrannies of Fascism, Marxist-Leninism and Colonialism.

It is a tragic sight to behold the excesses and hubris that threaten the demise of Pax Americana. So soon after the unipolar moment that followed the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989.

In fact, we may be forgiven to conclude that Trump’s “America first” paradigm signals the final nail on Pax Americana as the great super power flirts with retreating into its customary Monroe doctrinarian posture.

If a decade ago has now become akin to ancient history, there should perhaps be little wonder that the global consensus that emerged from a world deeply chastened by the horrors of the grisliest of wars, means so little to so many of us. It was, after all, almost seventy-five years ago, akin to a millennium to our anti-historical sensibilities.

It seems, tragically, we are now ready to relearn the very same lessons purchased by the rivers of blood flowing from tens of millions of our very own fellow human beings, in a war that ought to have forever cured us of our congenital bent towards violence. But alas!

Let us pray that the mercurial hand of fate will be kind to the romantics among us; those of us who for years have cast longing eyes to the grand ages that produced the Lincolns, the Churchills and the Mandelas of yesteryear. 

Perchance we soon be presented with our own stage upon which to discover the heat of the furnaces that reveal the great among men.

The thorny land question

In the previous iteration of this discussion, I proposed that we do not have the luxury of choice when it comes to the structural reorganisation of the South African socio-economy - radical economic transformation, if you will.  Not if we are serious about creating a spatially, socially and economically just society at piece with itself and the world.

Considering our socio-historical context and my general observation of history, it is my considered view that radical socio-economic change is a certainty. There are only two uncertainties: when it will happen and who will drive it.

Will it be demagogues, charlatans  and opportunists ,with the attendant cavernous vortex of chaos or will it be patriotic South Africans?

I further proposed that if such a society is to be realised, the instruments of creating it must be a reflection of the society we hope to create. That is, it has to be done thoughtfully, equitably, sincerely and with malice toward none. In this piece I seek to weigh in on possible ways of materialising this ideal.

It is neither possible nor desirable to delink this discussion with land restitution. With good reason as history has placed land at the centre of any discussion about restructuring our socio-economic edifice.

Land is usually a highly emotive topic anywhere in the world as it is one of the primary dimensions of our existence, economically, socially, psychologically and spiritually. In this regard, we are no exception.

Recently, certain politicians have raised some controversial questions around our colonial legacy. It has predictably stirred different sectors of societies in different ways. At the heart of it is – if our history in this country is viewed in purely negative terms, what does it say about our place in this society and our right to exist? Do we have a place in it? Do we belong?

These are important questions that must be understood and carefully considered by all. After all history has conferred upon our young democracy a multi-cultural status. At the best of times it makes social cohesion and organisation considerably tricky but the mature approach requires that we make peace with this  unchangeable reality and soberly deal with the problems it comes with. Not least the thorny land question.

This is because embodied human beings cannot exist outside space and time. Land is thus at the centre of what it means to be a human being.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the identity of any people group usually derives from its forebears, their personal and collective histories as well as the land that bore witness to those histories.

The dimensions of space and time are not disconnected because those who own space, in other words land, are usually conferred power to own their time, along with the freedom and dignity that comes with.

This is besides the fact that land has the potential to earn rental, capital appreciation if not some kind of agricultural or mineral yield. This serves to further relieve land owners of the pressure to sell their time or labour in the market place at potentially unfavourable terms.

Time in this case corresponds to the hours sold for labour. Land ownership thus affords the freedom to choose how to invest time because those confined to the rental system do this under a form of duress due to the perpetual pressure to earn rental income to survive. This creates a mind-set that deprives them of the genuine choice over the direction of their lives.

Slaves are by definition those who have ownership of neither their space nor time. Those who do not own land, as I argue, also only partially own their time and are thus only partially free in this sense.

It is unsurprising that most wars have been fought over land. This brings to mind Hitler’s idea of lebensraum, which drove his acquisitive eastward march towards the vast, fertile fields of Eastern Europe and Russia.

In South Africa the dispossession of land from the natives was initially to assume illegal control of their space but culminated in the quest to control their time as well, thus completing their status of constructive enslavement.

The growth of the agricultural and mining sectors of the South African economy around the advent of the 20^th century became restricted by growing labour shortages. The unwilling natives were thus violently compelled to sell their labour in distant and inhospitable places, mostly separated from their families, through the dispossession of the last vestiges of their land.  

Short of total slavery, which had been abolished in the British Empire for at 66 years by 1900, this was the next best option. The union of South Africa in 1910 thus coincided with a series of laws that culminated in the land act of 1913 that completed the destruction of black South African way of life.

This had been an iterative process that had begun over 200 years prior. It was no coincidence that this period coincided with the formation of the ANC in 1912.

Subsequent to this, native South Africans came to cut a pitiful sight of contemptable vagrants and scavengers at the fringes of South African society, squabbling amongst themselves for the pitiable morsels of slave wages tossed to them by their effective slave masters.

The rest were left to scuffle among themselves over the sum of these wages in the confined dormitory spaces that continue to blight the fringes of South African cities, for their survival.  It is no surprise that these became fertile ground for the criminality that came to spill into the rest of society, haunting the entire country, scarcely sparing formerly white suburbia at the conclusion of apartheid.

This background is important because it is not possible to understand current South African socio-economic problems without it. In fact what I’ve just described is still largely an accurate description of much of the workings of the contemporary South African economy.

Save for the much maligned BEE and affirmative action, in the minds of many South Africans, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest there would have been significant changes to the historical status quo had these interventions not been legal requirements. 

This is because of deeply entrenched social attitudes of master/servant, superiority/inferiority, excellence/mediocrity, diligence/laziness, insider/outsider, shaped by the history of dispossession and the constructive slavery I’ve described. Mind-sets that stubbornly persist.

As a way of redressing these historical injustices, there have been growing proposals for expropriation of land without compensation. These have been predictably met with counter expressions of utter horror at the purported injustice.

Though some are honest enough to acknowledge that land was violently dispossessed at incalculable cost, even among those, there is a sense that the land was subsequently made productive in ways that has multiplied its value over the decades and centuries.

The interest of justice requires for the serious consideration of these concerns. After all it cannot be denied that significant value was contributed to the land over the centuries subsequent to its dispossession.

This valid factor should nevertheless be assessed in its proper context. The fact that the wealth of South Africa was built on the foundation of land, labour and skill.

The land was appropriated without compensation. The labour was at hired at grossly deflated rates due to the induced excess supply created by the constructive slavery previously discussed.

It is the skill injected by colonial architecture that gives expropriation without compensation a look of unfairness. But this should not be overstated. Current market prices do not reflect all the historical factors I've described. Not in the very least.

Certainly the colossal suffering caused by the destruction of the black South African life over the centuries is difficult to quantify in monetary terms.

A workable middle ground must therefore be found in the pursuit of sustainable land restitution. Models must be devised with clear timelines that must ideally include the acquisition of skills for the maintenance of current productivity levels at the very least.

It is important to bear in mind that the creation of a sustainable social order is the goal here rather than meting out historical justice for its own sake, even as it must be acknowledged that the absence of felt justice places our young democracy on very shaky ground. Which is why a zero-sum approach must be avoided at all costs.

South Africans need to wrestle hard about what constitutes a just settlement with a mind open to persuasion. Our future depends on it.

Radical economic transformation I - a case for restructuring the South African economy

Recently, there has been much talk about radical economic transformation. Not least from the highest office of the land. This follows a period of rising popular discontent against the very same office.

Thus many reasonably view this talk as akin to political opportunism not unlike that exhibited by its counterpart north of the border, when faced with similarly declining political fortunes more than two decades ago.

This language nevertheless strikes a visceral chord in the hearts of too many South Africans to take lightly.  It is for precisely that reason that it is now being used.

Such an instrument in the hands of leaders with a demagogic bent is shown by history as highly hazardous. Akin to a fail-safe perennial lifeboat for their political survival albeit at an incalculable cost to the rest of society.

The problem is that this instrument will remain useful for such destructive ends, even if merely as a threat, until the root issues that give it a look of legitimacy are systematically dismantled. Chief of which are the chronic structural economic inequalities that make our society a curious global phenomenon.

Herein lies the price of the socioeconomic inequalities that some of us have bewailed for some time - they make for politically and socially unstable societies.

This in turn contributes to low levels of the very economic investment needed to salvage the situation, as is currently the case in South Africa. And thus we have the makings of a pernicious vicious circle that future analysts may use to account for our sharp economic reversals decades from now. Unless we do something about it.

The stalemate needs to be broken.

Fundamental restructuring of our economy is necessitated by this pressing need. This is what I understand to be the meaning of radical economic transformation. But it has to be done thoughtfully, equitably, sincerely and with malice toward none.

Sullied political regimes certainly have no business being anywhere near this process. The Zuma regime is a case in point. It has proven itself all but morally disqualified for this critical and delicate task.

In fact the problem many of us have with the Zuma administration is not that it is an advocate of economic transformation, as it misleadingly suggests, but that it is not sincere in its advocacy for it.

What we have seen from it instead is enough to conclude that it seeks to misuse this highly emotive and important discussion as a cover for more of the same patronage and ravenous looting that we have seen from it from the onset.

By co-opting the concept of “radical economic transformation”, Zuma thus serves as an obstacle to its genuine advancement by giving it an undeserved bad name by association.

And you can be sure that those on the cushy side of our skewed economic equation, by and large will scarcely be proponents of it. Not unsurprisingly, as it is not in their immediate economic interests to be so.

The desire to protect these short-term parochial interests lies behind the perennial refrain for organic and gradual economic change as our only sure path, as we have heard ad nauseam since 1994.

If we put all the pseudo-intellectual posturing aside what ultimately underpins the idea of trickle-down economics is clear: the conscious or unconscious quest for the preservation of historical privilege.

Though we might have been easily seducible in the 80s and 90s, the aftermath of the Financial Crisis has all but exposed it for its utter bankruptcy.

Not unlike cream, wealth simply refuses to trickle down to the poorest in society on its own accord. As Piketty and others have argued, the very structure of the present global economic system dictates that it doesn’t.

It must either be induced or the entire system must be changed. Since we still await a coherent alternative to the current system, our recourse for now remains the former.

More so in societies characterised by the sharp structural inequalities such as South Africa.

The sea of the multitudinous unemployed means that bargaining power is always heavily tilted toward owners of capital, such that the rate of return for them and the managerial class, their surrogates, always exceeds wage growth.

In recent times the multiples have become increasingly excessive, bordering on the obscene. Ever yawning socio-economic asymmetries have been the inevitable result.

In South Africa this has deep historical roots as the economy was designed in the interests of colonial hegemony. The role of natives was always clearly cut-out for them - that of hewers of wood and drawers of water within this economic framework.

This theme was and is still largely consistent across domestic, agricultural, mining, industrial and corporate systems.

Those for whom no use could be found, well, tough luck for them. Their lot was to eke out a meagre existence in the fringes of society.

The problem is that in South Africa, unlike in many other societies, this fringe constituted voluminous descendants of the historically dispossessed.

Though this pattern has been altered somewhat since 1994, the mould remains largely intact. That is why economic inequality is still generally colour-coded in South Africa.

Though demographics dictate that colour will inevitably change with time, the structural flaws risk remaining in perpetuity, along with the attendant socio-political instability, until the flawed structure is conclusively altered.

The democratically elected post-apartheid government, with its position as chief stewards of the country’s socio-economy through its legislative and executive power, must take primary responsibility for failing to do this. Laying the blame solely on so-called white monopoly capital is disingenuous.

Unless the country is radically disrupted from its noxious inequality trap, there is no reason to expect anything but a worsening of the situation over the decades and centuries, with commensurately dire socio-political implications. Precisely as history and the compounding dynamic of wealth instruct that inequality can only beget more inequality.

Structural economic reform is necessary to rescue the country from this historically determined path-dependent trajectory. If not for the demands of justice than certainly for the pragmatic quest for a stable, sustainable and prosperous social order.

Broadminded patriots have an ever diminishing opportunity to ensure that this process is managed peacefully.

The window of opportunity will not remain forever. As recent events highlight, it is highly susceptible to manipulation by demagogic political actors driven by their twisted interests, with ominous implications for all of us.

What we must consider next is how we can go about structurally reforming our socio-economy. Part 2 will tackle this question.

The ascent of anti-intellectualism

The world stands at a worrying historical juncture.  In Britain we recently saw popular rejection of pan Europeanism despite spirited attempts by its intelligentsia to persuade a decidedly cynical public about the perils of this course of action.

The European integration project that has underwritten among the more peaceful epochs of a historically warlike continent, now confronts some of its sternest tests. It must contend with smouldering populist undercurrents that could only have been emboldened by Brexit.

Across the pond we watch with bated breath as Americans dally with the possibility of electing as president, a man with the temerity to not only publically disrespect women and entire people groups, but one who has expressed unmistakable admiration for Vladimir Putin, a fellow who has never been accused of possessing effusive affections for democratic values.

Who would have thought that we would find within a whisker of the American presidency a person whose commitment to NATO, an organisation that has stood as an unwavering bastion of post-Second World War global stability, is flimsy at best?

We are justified to be a little troubled by the disquieting implications for the global world order as it confronts the grim prospect of a dark and unpredictable era not entirely unlike the infamous nineteen thirties.

The thread running through much of what I have described is a disconcerting preference for emotional ventilation regardless of its standing in relation to sound judgement. The zeitgeist was aptly captured by erstwhile British minister of Justice Michael Gove, whose simplistic but effective rebuttal of his Brexit opponents, captured the sentiments of millions of his compatriots – we are tired of the experts!

As a South African I observe these developments with a curious if not a wary sense of déjà vu.  The script seems eerily familiar as I have a distinct memory that hearkens back barely a decade ago, of watching with helpless terror as a wave of anti-intellectualism threatened and succeeded to sweep away some of the hard-earned gains of the post-apartheid era in my country.

Disappointment with the Mbeki administration, led by a man with an well-earned reputation for intellectualism as well as many real and perceived flaws, came to convince a large section of the South African population that it was the intellectualism he represented that was the problem.

A disturbing consensus gradually coalesced that nothing but his polar antithesis would do. Zuma came to be the obliging incarnation, complete with a colourful personally and a singing voice go with. And thus began a grim epoch in our country’s history with its ubiquitous, well-documented, tragic and at times embarrassing travails. It is fair to say that the country has already paid an incalculable price for its flirtation with anti-intellectualism.

The difficulty with the surge of popular anti-intellectualism is its intrinsic imperviousness to reason, precisely as it casts as its archenemy, reason itself. In the ensuing inverted script, unreason is crowned as the new reason. Fools become the new sages. The discerning are rendered completely impotent as idiocy becomes the only respected currency of engagement even in the loftiest of corridors of political power.

As with Mbeki, intellectuals are usually not entirely innocent in creating the dismal state of affairs that accounts for their eventual demise. They are ultimately hoist by their own petard.

Intellectualism has the tendency to breed elitism and paternalism instead of serving as a weapon to advance the general good. At worst, as we saw in the recent financial crisis, it can also be used to advance the crudest form of self-interest that carries scant concern for the consequent cost to the general public.

Intellectuals are those with the penchant for disciplined and rational thought. Thought attested to by the scientific method or well tested wisdom, along with the necessary demonstrable benefits.  Their ranks are swelled necessarily by those who by virtue of the value of their contribution to society, become prominent, successful or even wealthy.

All of this is very desirable. Indeed, it is a perverse and self-sabotaging society that discourages the legitimate success of its citizens. It can only be impoverished by their inevitable flight to places where their talent is embraced and celebrated.

The successful nevertheless ultimately undermine their own long-term interests, as we are seeing in the prevailing climate in the West, when they do not consciously employ their intellectualism toward the advancement of the greater good. There are after all only so many places they can wander to.

This unfortunate state of affairs is crudely captured by the yawning economic inequalities in parts of the West and the accompanying popular resentment. Western intellectuals are guilty of creating a socio-economic environment that is increasingly hostile to the socio-economic upward mobility of the rest.

The resulting resentment can spawn a wholesale rejection of the establishment along with the values it represents, to the ultimate ruin of everyone. Such as the very idea of intellectualism.

The rise of Trump occurs upon the crest of this rising tide of anti-intellectualism. In times past it swept into the mainstream the French revolution and the ghoulish Reign of Terror. On a different occasion it swept into oblivion the Russian Romanov dynasty bringing with it Marxist Leninism replete with its show trials and gulags.

It is yet unclear what the current iteration of anti-intellectualism brings for the West but the prognosis is hardly glowing.