Helen Zille’s suspension [1] from the
DA must come as a surprise to her echo chamber on twitter. Many of them hold
her in such high regard that they have come to believe that she can do no
wrong. Many of them readily lapped up her latest controversial outburst, which
expounded on the infrastructural merits of colonialism. Notwithstanding the
historical inaccuracies in the history lesson she delivered to the country her
supporters were largely unmoved. Much like Donald Trump, they appear to have
found a voice in Zille that expresses their deeply held beliefs, regularly
espoused in the comfort of homes, but frowned upon out in society.
Some of Zille’s supporters’ views
are based on deep-seated beliefs they have held for a long time. Under
Apartheid, even liberals espoused them without pause for thought. But times
have changed. There is a new language in society, one that identifies and
critiques these views as symptomatic of systemic and structural racism. And it
is this that has proved to be the tragic flaw that has undone Helen Zille’s
political career; her statements, and her staunch defence of them, typify the
casual systemic racism that underlies so many of the micro-interactions in
South African society.
It is not simply that she doesn’t
get it (she honestly doesn’t), it is also that she refuses to accommodate the
view that any such thing as systemic and structural racism exists. In the
current political climate – globally and locally – this is quite literally a
conversation stopper. In the current political climate in South Africa it
effectively serves as a block on any kind of reconciliation dialogue. It is one
thing not to understand, it is quite another thing to refuse to understand.
Indeed, she dismisses the discourse around systemic and structural racism as
the purview of “critical race theorists”. As she once instructed @Lenz_Gavin on
twitter, “The “Critical Race Theorists” who take issue with me are the polar
opposite of DA supporters”. It is now quite clear that her reading of the
current social and political context was markedly off target.
What is telling is that she
refused – point blank – to accept, or even accommodate, the view that her
remarks were not only historically inaccurate, ignorant of scholarship and revisionist, it was also deeply hurtful and condescending to
the black majority in South Africa. The tone and blunt delivery of her remarks were thoughtlessly and needlessly crude. Very many people attempted to convince her
to take a softer stance, to be more conciliatory in her approach; to understand
why her comments were hurtful to the majority of people in this country.
Yet her response was to credit
herself with initiating a ‘much needed debate’ on the issue. This notwithstanding that it was the student protests put the decolonisation debate
on the public agenda two years ago in the first place (she has disparaged them
at every turn on her twitter account). Later, she went on to suggest that
pandering to victimhood, or even indulging in it personally, was not what she
had been brought up to do. After all, in her view, as a woman and a descendant
of Holocaust victims, she has had to endure a great deal to get where she is
today, and she didn’t get there by feeling sorry for herself.
Yet it is precisely this ‘pull
yourself up by the bootstraps anti-victimhood’ narrative that has, for the past
two decades, served as a formidable block against real reconciliation. It is a
view that is typically espoused by white South Africans who enjoy all the
privileges of a society characterised by a pervasive racist colonial and
apartheid history that is undeniably mirrored in the features of the current
system and its inherited structural inequality. It invokes the mythical narrative of the ‘resilient settler’ who endures against all odds to ‘tame’ the
new territory and bring ‘civilisation’ to the natives.
This mythical narrative
conveniently de-emphasises the fact that colonial and settler wealth and
industry was built on the backs of slavery and the widespread theft of land and
resources, and left a legacy of profound under-development in the colonies that
persists to this day. As someone who has served on very many transformation
action programmes and committees, since the late 1990’s, it is in my opinion
the key stumbling block to transformation because it prevents white people from
being able to put themselves in the shoes of black people.
This prescriptive narrative,
which masquerades as a recipe for the emancipation of black people in South
Africa, is in reality a defensive reaction on the part of many white South
Africans. Historical guilt renders many white South Africans fragile; unable to
adequately listen to the experiences and perspectives of black victims of an
inherited system that robs them of their dignity and equality in everyday
interactions. Black people experience this narrative as being talked down to,
even chastised, without being listened to. It reinforces the structural and
systemic inequality that they bear the burden of purely due to the colour of
their skin and alienates them from white society.
To most black people this
‘anti-victimhood’ narrative is a denial of the very real societal conditions
they endure under a historically racist, exploitative system that was designed
precisely to provide a rationale for the exploitation of black people and their
resources. The impacts of history don’t stop when an election is held or a
constitution is written, it takes a long time for society to outgrow its
historical properties. To assert that because we now live in a democracy we are
all magically substantively equal – whether socially, economically or before
formal systems such as the law and the state – is simply delusional. It is a
simple fact that our history remains with us.
Helen Zille’s preferences for a
meritocratic South Africa are built on this tenuous narrative, and bear no
relation to the reality that the majority of black and brown South Africans
endure on a daily basis. South Africa has the highest inequality in the world,
and that inequality delineates along racial and spatial lines. South Africa is
still largely a divided country. Brokering reconciliation is an ongoing
process; it did not end with the early presidency of Nelson Mandela. It is
remarkably politically imperceptive to get this wrong in the current racially
divisive climate in South Africa, where serious disgruntlements over the
Apartheid settlement – made during the transition to democracy – have emerged.
Simply put, she has misread the
broader current socio-political context in South Africa in this critical
moment. In a time when she should be the ‘listening leader’, she has chosen to
be the ‘instructive leader’. And when it comes to the black majority – which
the DA’s new black leadership has targeted with such great effort – Helen
Zille’s views constitute political suicide. It may resonate with her
one-million strong echo-chamber on twitter, but it certainly does not resonate
with the black majority in any measure except as antagonism. This is something
that the new black leadership of the DA understand and have taken great pains
to explain. This is part of the statement that DA leader Mmusi Maimane made regarding
Helen Zille’s suspension today,
“It has become quite
fundamentally clear that Premier Zille and I hold fundamentally different
attitudes about the direction the Democratic Alliance needs to accomplish in
2019, and the goals and priorities that this flows from. Ms Zille’s views and
statements on colonialism are views that I do not support and I believe,
without doubt, undermine the reconciliation project. There is no question that
(in) those original tweets, and in fact subsequent justifications, were some
things that I found personally deeply offensive, and I believe were offensive
to many South Africans, and are damaging to the respective project that we are
trying to build. If we are going to achieve reconciliation we need to be able
to ensure that when we build that dialogue that we understand the history and
the context of certain issues.”
There is a lot in this statement
that needs to be understood in terms of the current South African political
context. On the surface, the issues around reconciliation are clear, but there
is a deeper story here. It is that Helen Zille’s political beliefs run in a very different direction to the direction that the new leadership of the DA is
taking. At its core, Zille’s political messaging threatens to split the old (mostly white) conservative core from the DA. Her twitter account has
effectively served as an echo-chamber for an alternative vision for the DA’s
politics. Quite literally, her twitter echo-chamber is very akin to a tea-party
styled caucus within the DA, and her Trump-like antics have proven very
effective in stirring them up. It is a potentially disastrous situation for the
DA to end up in.
This is especially the case when
one considers the current impacts of the very public fragmentation and dissolution
of the ANC. In this context, an opposition party that is also in political
distress is likely to prove a very unattractive option for voters in the 2019
election. South Africans are tired of political uncertainty and infighting;
they want a stable government that they can trust to get on with their jobs.
They don’t want another ruling party that is caught up in internal battles that
paralyse the legislature and the economy. Yet this is precisely the problem
with coalition governments in South Africa; historically, they have proved to
be at great risk of lapsing into dysfunctionality.
Zille has remained defiant about
her suspension. She immediately released a statement stating that a particular
section of the DA’s constitution had been violated in suspending her, and that
she had offered to apologise, and that the ‘truth’ would come out later down
the line. Should she proceed down this path (which she is likely to), her
refusal to back down may prove devastating for the DA and her political legacy.
It shows a profound lack of political judgement for an ex-leader of a party to
draw the new leadership into a divisive battle.
And make no mistake, this is not
simply the matter of a few ill-advised tweets, it is about the political
direction that the DA is taking. She is now contesting the new leadership’s
political direction directly, she is no longer engaging in an indirect battle
over twitter. She is engaging in a direct confrontation with the party
leadership and its structures, and this confrontation serves as a proxy battle
for control over the party’s core vision.
If it were merely the case that
Helen Zille was committing political suicide to make a point then this matter
would not be such a dangerous one. But she is the former leader of the party. Her
challenge to the party leadership is potentially catastrophic for the DA. Under
normal circumstances, most people would simply pass it off as her inability to
accept that she was no longer in power, having enjoyed the position of number
one so long, and missed being in the limelight. But the real danger lies in the
potential for Zille to force the conflict into a space that forces a split
within the DA or results in a significant loss of its core voting base, who are
essentially social conservatives.
And she may very well proceed
down that road. She simply cannot accept being wrong about anything, and has
developed a Trump-like ability to bully and intimidate. She is a proud person
who will not give an inch. It seems that to her, giving an inch would constitute
a total and wholesale loss. She is, in this way, a person of extremes. And her
support base is as well, for as it is with leaders of her ilk, the general
public either loves or hates them, there is little in-between.
The current leader of the DA, Mmusi
Maimane, is the polar opposite of Helen Zille in this respect. He is a natural
consensus builder and unifier, he listens carefully to what the electorate are
saying and feeling. He is empathetic rather than a brutal logician. He is
reading more than what a simple statement says in legal terms; he is reading
what it means in the minds and feelings of millions of people for whom it is a
very difficult decision to vote for the DA ... he is connecting with the
emotions and sentiments of the majority, something that Helen Zille just cannot
do in the same way.
He has correctly discerned that
Zille’s statements and arguments send out precisely the wrong kind of political
messaging for the DA and after ignoring them for a long time he has been forced
to act. Mmusi Maimane is a diplomat who does not enjoy this kind of
confrontation. Indeed, he only really started taking the fight to Jacob Zuma
after the EFF made their disruptive appearance in parliament and shook up South
African politics. He then understood that he could throw some direct blows at
the president, but yet, even in his most critical moments he still wears an
aura of diplomacy. In a sense, he really is a gentle man, and he does not seem
to relish the opportunity for confrontation the way others such as Julius
Malema do. He’d rather maintain his dignity and that of chambers, but the winds
of change have forced him to adapt his game, and he has done so admirably.
My feeling is that he was hoping
that Helen Zille would fade gracefully into the background over time, but as
the pressures of the current political moment have mounted her repeated
intrusions into the political messaging of the DA has forced him to act. He
seemed reluctant at the press conference yesterday. This is something he had to
do; it was not what he preferred to do. It is simply not in Maimane’s character
to thoughtlessly wade into a fight; for him that kind of behaviour is
ill-advised. To Helen Zille, however, conflicts are opportunities to
distinguish oneself. There is a gulf between them in terms of their qualities
as leaders.
Zille may not get it, but her
actions run the very real risk of painting Mmusi Maimane as a token black
leader. Black South Africans – especially in the professional class – are
keenly aware of fronting, where talented and capable black professionals
(sometimes not that talented) are positioned at the head of white companies and
organisations to give them legitimacy. Many of my generation have found
ourselves being offered positions of leadership only to then discover upon
taking the reins that the former white leadership works overtime to keep you in
check, hovering over you as you take every decision, exhibiting a profound lack
of trust in your ability to take the lead and see through the agenda that your
role prescribes.
Rendering Maimane vulnerable to
being painted as nothing more than a ‘puppet’ or token leader, in the current
political context is perhaps the most destructive potential outcome of Zille’s
current political messaging. Should she succeed in dragging out this conflict,
bringing about more acrimony and division in the process, it will matter little
if her desire for a personal victory and vindication is satisfied. She will
have delegitimized the party leader in the process, weakening him in the public
perception, as well as from within the ranks of the party.
This is a ‘lose-lose’ situation
that is all of Zille’s making. If she had, had the foresight and humility to
back down earlier and make a sincere apology, Mmusi Maimane’s position as
leader would have been strengthened, and her reputation would have suffered
little permanent damage. Her intransigence, however, has proved to be a fatal
flaw, one that could do permanent damage to herself and her party. Simply put,
this is not about the semantics of her statements, or what is strictly correct
in textbook or legal terms; it is about being able to read the current
political mood and sentiment. This requires soft skills, a quality that is
distinctly lacking – by all accounts – in Helen Zille’s leadership style. Her
potentially disastrous miscalculation is proof that the DA required a change of
leadership in order to make inroads into the black voter base and broaden its
electoral base.
Political leadership requires a
modicum of diplomacy and etiquette. This is especially the case when leadership
of a political party is transferred. It is simply unacceptable for an old
leader to engage in political messaging that serves to obstruct and sabotage
the vision that the new leadership are building and implementing. The most
recent leader simply holds too much political power with the party and its
electoral base to be constantly engaging in conflicts that masquerade as
‘debate’. It has the ultimate effect of sending out mixed messages to the
electorate. In the case of the DA in South Africa it sends out the potentially
disastrous message the new black leader of the DA is simply a token leader that
is too weak to see through a new vision for the party.
Helen Zille had a very long run at the helm of the DA and her leadership certainly had its highlights. But her leadership is now over, and she needs to give the new leadership space to lead the party as they see fit. That is what is required of her, but it will take a small miracle to get her to roll back her zeal and act in the interests of the party because she possesses a fundamental tragic flaw; her ego is too large to accommodate the perspectives of others. When she engages in debate one gets the impression that she is too busy preparing her own opinion to faithfully process the perspectives that are being put to her. This situation can only end badly. The question is whether Zille will pay the price for her miscalculation, or whether it will be the DA as a party that suffers in the run-up to the 2019 national election.
NB:
[1] It has since emerged that the DA leader may have jumped the gun by announcing Helen Zille's suspension as she was still entitled to a few more days before making submissions to the party why she should not be suspended. The party have hence revised their position to state that they were merely announcing a notice of intention to suspend her. She has 72 hours to make submissions. Zille has milked the opportunity, suggesting that Maimane may have misunderstood the DA's constitution, further weakening his position as leader of the party in the public eye.
Update: Helen Zille was suspended from all party activities by the DA's Federal Executive on 7 June 2017, and a disciplinary hearing will be held from Friday 9th June where she will answer to charges of bringing the party into disrepute. She is predictably defiant, and has defended her position. Time will tell what toll this will have on the DA, but it is already clear that the organisation and its leadership is undergoing considerable strain. Zille's legacy may ultimately be defined more by its unsavoury decline towards its end rather than its highlights.
