Leon greets Mbeki Photo courtesy

In August 2006, South Africa woke up to the news that Adriaan Vlok, former Minister of Law and Order, had visited Rev. Frank Chikane, the then Director-General in the Presidency, and washed the Reverend’s feet to demonstrate how sorry he was for ordering the poisoning of the Reverend in the late 1980s. The news received varied reaction from breath and length of the country.

 

A few weeks later, former President Thabo Mbeki, in his capacity as President of the ANC, wrote so lyrically about the incident. He said “Once again, what happened on that day has imposed an obligation on all of us to ask ourselves many questions that are important to the future of our country, centred on such important questions as private imperatives and the public good, 'the RDP of the soul', national reconciliation, nation building, a new patriotism, and so on.”

 

Mbeki further said, “But, centrally, I believe that this happening, especially the legitimate and necessary debate it has provoked, has also made it necessary for all of us as South Africans to pose the question whether we are indeed listening to and hearing one another! Or is it the case that the chasms that continue to fracture our society are so big and deep, that we are still unable to hear one another?”

 

As it was the case in August 2006, South Africans have reacted with keen interest to the appointment of Tony Leon, former leader of the Democratic Alliance, as South Africa’s Ambassador-designate to Argentina. Some have questioned Leon’s bona fides, his level of patriotism and a sense of belonging to South Africa. Others have welcomed this development, citing its importance in ensuring broader inclusion in running the affairs of the state as well as nation building.

 

From these diverse views, there are two critical issues that immediately come to mind. One is that of racialism and the other is the role of political opposition in constructing and shaping South Africa’s post-apartheid order. Those who question Leon’s bona fides, patriotism and a sense of belonging argue along racial lines on the one hand say that South Africa is rich with talent and capability among blacks from which the choice for the Ambassadorial post should have been made. On the other hand, it seems they do not feel comfortable with a member of an opposition party playing such a prominent role in South Africa’s post-apartheid political order. That Leon has often spoken openly and sometimes very strongly against the ANC does not sit well with them. They argue that his membership of a political opposition and generally his views do not qualify him as South Africa’s Ambassador. These views, once again, raise fundamental questions about the future of our country, in particular with regard to common good, national reconciliation, nation building and a new patriotism to which Mbeki referred.

 

Quite clearly as a country we still have to ‘deconstruct’ the apartheid residue of colour-line. The question is for how long will the differences of race remain the basis of denying others the right of sharing to their utmost ability the opportunities and privileges of South Africa’s post-apartheid order? This is not to argue against the very progressive policies of advancing the previously disadvantaged. Rather, the issue is that South Africa cannot simply wish away some talent and skills because they are possessed by non-Blacks. This important factor, so it seems to me, must have crossed President Zuma’s mind when making the decision about Leon. 

 

It is equally important that we strive to reconstruct ourselves as a people and define a new meaning for ourselves. Entrenching democracy within our country, in my view, should be the ultimate common good. That we have had four free, transparent and peaceful national general elections in the post-apartheid order is one step towards that common good. That successive ANC governments have since 1994 invited members of opposition to the Executive also bears testimony to the pursuit of that common good. It is these things, however small, that make South Africa a beacon of hope for the greater humanity.

 

Therefore, the imminent confirmation of Tony Leon as South Africa’s Ambassador to Argentina should be a welcome development; for it adds further impetus to the conscious efforts to unite the nation and symbolizes the maturity of our young democracy. When President Zuma considered Tony Leon for the Ambassadorial post he must have paid due regard to the country’s discriminatory past as well as the imperative to heal the divisions created by that ugly past.  President Zuma must have also been aware that he himself is mandated by the Constitution to be at the forefront of the conscious efforts to unite the nation for development and prosperity. Section 83b of the Constitution provides that the President ¬“must uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic”; and Section 83c says the President “promotes the unity of the nation and that which will advance the Republic.”

 

Our Constitution provides for an inclusive and cohesive society and a democratic state premised on human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms.  The Preamble of our Constitution says “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.” It further says the adoption of the Constitution was meant to, among other things, “improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person - build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.”

 

South Africa’s democracy has for the past decade-and-a-half been shaping up and maturing. There are many examples that attest this, despite concerns that sometimes our country displays tendencies of politico-constitutional paralysis. This maturity is evident in the manner in which we conduct ourselves politically. Quite recently, ahead of the 2009 April 22 national general elections political parties embarked on heated campaigns to discredit one another and sometimes exchanged slurs ostensibly to secure more votes for themselves. But conspicuous throughout this period was the complete absence of physical acts of violence. The elections came and passed and the ANC won a resounding victory with 65.9 percent of the votes cast. Fascinating still was the fact that various leaders of opposition parties made series of calls to the President of the ANC, Mr Jacob Zuma, to congratulate him and his party on their victory. The DA leader, Hellen Zille, told SAfm one morning that she had tried to call Mr Zuma to congratulate him because she truly was happy for him, and especially noting that the ANC had run a very effective election campaign. But unfortunately she could not reach him as his cell phone was apparently busy. Zille went further to say she felt the need to congratulate Mr Zuma because after all they were just political opponents and NOT enemies. 

 

Zille’s remarks were very encouraging; particularly noting that just 15 years ago South Africa emerged from a brutal system of apartheid during which a large segment of the country’s population was totally excluded from country’s body politic. Like the apartheid South Africa, some countries on the African continent are embroiled in a dog-eat-dog competition for power precisely because of the winner-takes-it all political practice that breeds total exclusion. In Rwanda, decades of exclusion of one ethnic group from the body politic and the economic benefits flowing there from resulted in a genocide in 1994. Other countries remain unstable precisely because of the exclusion one ethnic or religious group from the mainstream politics. In our neighbour north of Limpopo, Zimbabwe, there is political wrangle between the two major political parties (Zanu-PF and MDC) over which party should fill in the position of country’s Reserve Bank Governor and the Attorney-General. This wrangle has the potential to frustrate the Unity Government set up within the framework of the Global Political Agreement early this year.

 

In South Africa we do things differently because we have learnt from our ugly past. Although Mr Leon Leon has had lukewarm relations with the ANC government, he cannot be summarily dismissed as the enemy of the South African people – the majority of whom are obviously members of the ANC. On the contrary, he has said very sensible things with which many South Africans of all races agreed. At some point in 2005, Tony Leon said he saw a hopeful sign that South African politics was maturing and, as he put it, “moving beyond race, patronage and post-liberation nostalgia as the major themes of our democratic discourse.” He said this was important so that the country could have what he called ‘real’ and ‘open’ debates about urgent issues  such as economic reform and HIV/Aids, among others.

 

The significance of Leon’s observations is that they denote a desire on his part to engage in debates – something which again points to the maturity of the country’s democracy. Truth be told, debates about the pressing challenges facing the democratic South Africa should involve everybody, including the opposition. This observation finds resonance with the view expressed by Former President Nelson Mandela in November 1999 when he called for patriotic opposition which he said should preoccupy itself with the interests of the country first. Mandela said opposition (and he was particularly referring to white opposition) should not think that their legitimate responsibility is to oppose the majority party, the ANC.  He said they should not “present themselves as elements of a shadow government which has no responsibility both for our past and for our present”. Recalling the importance of what Mandela said, the relevant question then becomes: to what extent do black and white South Africans and members of different political parties see each other as true and loyal citizens of this country deserving of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms?

 

Indeed, as Former President Mbeki appealed to South Africans after the Vlok’s famous apology, “we are each products of our lived past and present. Inevitably, what we say and do is refracted by that reality, all of which impacts on others whose consciousness may be refracted by a different historical and social experience. To weld ourselves into one humane society, united in its diversity, surely, we must learn to listen to and hear one another.” As Mbeki emphasized, “the first step we must take in this regard is to learn that our respect for one another's humanity includes respect for the reality that each one of us will take his or her unique or special and stony feeder road to join the national march towards the achievement of the objective of a ‘South Africa (that) belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity’, as our Constitution says. This demands that we must cultivate the capacity to hear one another.”

 

South Africans must welcome President Zuma’s decision on Leon; for there is nothing to suggest that Leon, by virtue of his skin colour or political association, is less capable of promoting and defending South Africa’s interests abroad. On the contrary, Leon is endowed with qualities and skills which can help advance the interests of South Africa in Argentina. His clear understanding of political and economic issues as well as his analytical mind will make him a formidable diplomat he must be. His eloquence will certainly come in handy in articulating South Africa’s interests. This view is supported by Professor Sipho Seepe who in February 2007 said this of Leon: “Dignified, eloquent, reflective ... perhaps in the fullness of time we may come to appreciate Tony Leon’s contribution to deepening democracy.”

 

By Zamokwakhe Ludidi Somhlaba,

 

Deputy Director for African Affairs at the Department of Public Service and Administration in Pretoria. He writes in his personal capacity.