A call for honest and open debate

I am reminded of the words of Billy Bragg, remember him? The socialist musician who called Margaret Thatcher things I cannot repeat. Yes, the very one who had the following words printed on the cover of his albums: capitalim kills music, do not pay more than (x pounds) for this album. Well, I don't think I can help you further than that. Billy Bragg says in one of his songs: what will you do when the war is over, tender comrade . . .

I am reminded of these words thanks to an email I received from an old friend. The e-mail is one of those that you know you should not touch with a barge pole, but you do anyway. It is sent unsolicited to a whole lot of recipients who are called on to debate whether it is true that Cope is a party of educated people - or words to that effect. Now, you know that as soon as you put one line of response and click reply to all, you would have unleashed a flood of further responses, all addressed to all. You know that at some point you will regret you good intentions which will confirm the cynic view you always haboured, that no good deed will go unpunished. You also know that other addressees will see nothing wrong with clicking reply to all and flooding both your time and mailbox.

Having banished common sense out of my head, I responded to the email but only to the sender and copied a friend. The point I was hoping to make was that not everyone is particularly interested in what I have to say on this or any other topic. I argued that the question posed is a non-question. I stated that it begs all manner of other and more fundamental questions such as what is being educated, is it a function of a qualification or is it something else. I also made a plea that debate must be encouraged among all citizens. I argued that what would foster good debate is the environment in which such debate takes place.

Unless each one of us feels safe to state her view without fear of being labeled this or the other, there is no point in entering the debate and in fact it would be a misnomer to call such an interaction a debate in the first place. The debate in my view is not whether I am a member of this or the other party or which party I intend to vote for in the coming elections. The interesting debate to me is how one reaches the conclusion to join a particular party or to vote for another. Some decisions are driven more by emotion and others are more dispassionate. This is independent of which is right or wrong; if there can be such a determination in the first place. The point is that each one of us should be free to state either.

My observation of the debates that are carrying on, especially in the less formal space of the internet and letters to the editors are about the political affiliation of the writer or speaker first, then about the facts of the matter later. To illustrate, if I argue that Mr Jacob Zuma is not an appropriate presidential candidate for the ANC, then I am deemed to be pro Thabo Mbeki. I concede that this is not new in South African politics. It is a tactic that has been applied to varying degrees of success by all politicians. We all remember the fight back campaign of the Democratic Alliance under the leadership of Tony Leon. In fact the core drive of the DA in this round of elections is that you the voter must stop a Jacob Zuma two-thirds majority in parliament. To do so, you must vote for the DA. This is the age-old approach that says I am good because the other is so bad. There is good and bad in all of us, the trick is for us to talk about what is bad without insulting and to talk about what is good without sanctifying. It is an admirable quality, at least in my book, to accept and learn from one's mistakes.

There is not one party that in my view is deserving of my vote at this stage. Parties are made up of people and some of the people concerned do not deserve my endorsement of their quest for leadership. This is a personal choice to which I am entitled. You will recall that during the leadership of Nelson Mandela, the ANC could do no wrong. You will also recall that a lot went wrong during that period but thanks to the halo effect of Madiba, it was tolerated - with good reason I might add. That is the value of inspirational leadership - one that creates room for all to participate meaningfully in their society. There is however another side to that kind of leadership - one that does not fully tackle the painful stuff.

There are a lot of individuals who inspire nothing but confidence in me. The minister of finance comes to mind. There are a lot more other people like him, who quietly go on about their business. The politics of this country are complex, as they should be. They require of us not to be educated but to think and speak openly and honestly. To suggest that membership of this or the other organisation gives you clarity of thought and a monopoly on political commentary, is just rubbish. To suggest so will in my mind give credence to all the suggestions that being a member of this or the other race, gives or denies you of this or the other character.

We owe it to ourselves and our children not to impoverish our social discourse with sloganeering instead of growing it with open and honest interchange of thoughts and ideas - educated or otherwise. Even as we disagree, let us protect each other's right and space to express the very ideas on which we so vehemently disagree. Anything less, is meaningless.

This is my wish and hope for an open and democratic society. A society in which we, the people choose whichever leaders we want. A society in which our leaders know in no uncertain terms that they serve us, the people of South Africa, regardless of our political affiliation. This is the basis on which each one of the members of the cabinet ought to be judged - on his or her service to the people and not his or her service to the party.

These are my honest views which are no more or less valid than yours even though they may be wrong, which I am sure you will tell me. My call for honest and open debate means nothing if I am not prepared to listen, especially to those that I do not agree with.

As I am closing this off, I am reminded of other words: when you know what you are saying, you will hardly ever find a reason to shout. These are not my words. So, what are we to do now that the war is over comrades?