Shades of black and the DA

It’s no great surprise that 16 or so years into the ‘new’ South Africa our national obsession with race still persists – and that when it comes to the ballot box race (along with struggle history) still matters. Race clearly informs the mud-slinging over the choice of the DA’s new black hope, Lindiwe Mazibuko. Is that a fair description? I think it is – if you look at the way she has been marketed and presented to the voting public by the DA. Think back to the election poster, and consider the argument that her election as parliamentary leader will help to free the DA from its image as a party that is closely associated with ‘white’ interests and the preservation of the status quo. The argument, which seems to be self-evident, is that if the DA is to grow, then it must appeal to more black South Africans. And the inference is that Mazibuko is the leader who will enable the DA to do these things. She commented after her win: “We are plotting our trajectory rapidly. This will make us a viable alternative to the ANC going forward.” She may well be a young, capable, intelligent, hard-working member of the DA– but this doesn’t explain her rapid rise through the ranks, or why she was preferred to other young, talented, hard-working MPs.

If she was selected partly or largely on the basis of her hoped-for appeal to black voters, and if we are to escape from our racial past, it seems reasonable to ask whether skin colour alone is a sufficient qualification. It should be obvious that, however powerful a signifier skin colour may have been, it is not credible or appropriate to judge a person’s electoral appeal simply on this basis. The electorate is not that stupid.

It was Verwoerd’s race-based thinking that sought to make skin colour the signifier of identity, culture and personal worth. To think that skin pigmentation can be the basis of any meaningful judgement about a person is to perpetuate that malign legacy. ‘Blackness’ was given memorable definition in this country by Steve Biko, one of the founders of Black Consciousness. In asserting the positive value of ‘blackness’ as an identity forged by the common experience of oppression, he was not falling into the Verwoerdian trap. He insisted that ‘being black is not a matter of pigmentation – being black is a reflection of a mental attitude.’ He provided an inclusive definition of ‘blackness’, and recognised that some black people actually aspired to ‘whiteness’ (he referred to such people as ‘non-whites’). Having a dark skin does not automatically make one an agent of transformation. Isn’t this both a matter of common sense and common observation?

In the new South Africa the material circumstances of some black people have changed. They may have grown up in a middle-class suburb; they may have received a privileged education in private schools or former Model-C schools, or they may have been educated outside the country. There is nothing wrong with this – but how appropriate would it be for these people to claim that they represent the interests of those who grow up in the townships or informal settlements, and who experience deprivation and poverty and frightening levels of crime. (It is a matter of fact that the material circumstances of many black people have not changed very much since the apartheid era.) Claims based purely on skin pigmentation are not credible, because they imply that class, education and cultural experience do not matter. This is why some commentators remark on Mazibuko’s accent, ask how fluent she is in isiZulu, and ask how at home she feels in a township. Some commentators (even some within the DA) ask whether her selection is not a case of ‘window-dressing’.

It is unfortunate (and may seem unfair) for Mazibuko to be subjected to this kind of critique – but it is not surprising or inappropriate – and it is not ‘Verwoerdian’. It goes with the territory; it is part of the process of political contestation in our fledgling democracy. Responses from DA leaders simply expose the sensitivity of these issues within the DA.