The Tightrope of Political Commentary in SA: A Call for Nuance and Intellectual Honesty

By Nco Dube

Political commentary in South Africa is a minefield. It is a space where the commentator is expected to navigate a labyrinth of racial, socio-economic, and party-political loyalties, often at the expense of intellectual honesty. The public, it seems, demands consistency not in the pursuit of truth, but in the reinforcement of pre-existing biases. This expectation creates a paradoxical environment where commentators are both revered and reviled, often for the same piece of commentary, depending on the day and the audience.

The situation is particularly fraught when it comes to commentary on the African National Congress (ANC), the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the Democratic Alliance (DA), and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP). Similarly, figures like Helen Zille, Jacob Zuma, Julius Malema, and Cyril Ramaphosa elicit strong reactions, often drowning out any attempt at balanced, nuanced analysis.

The Expectation of Consistency: A Double-Edged Sword

In South Africa, the expectation of consistency in political commentary is not merely a preference; it is a demand. Commentators are expected to align themselves with a particular political ideology, racial group, or socio-economic class, and to remain steadfast in their allegiance. This expectation is rooted in the country’s history of racial and political division, where loyalty to a cause or group was often a matter of survival. However, in the post-apartheid era, this expectation has become a straitjacket, stifling honest discourse and discouraging intellectual flexibility.

Take, for example, the case of Helen Zille, the former leader of the DA. Zille is a polarising figure, often criticised for her comments on colonialism and her perceived insensitivity to the racial dynamics of South Africa. When a commentator criticises Zille for her remarks, they are lauded by those who view her as a symbol of white privilege and insensitivity. However, if the same commentator were to praise Zille for her role in building the DA into a formidable opposition party, they would be accused of betraying the cause of racial justice. This binary thinking leaves little room for a nuanced understanding of Zille’s contributions and shortcomings.

Similarly, Jacob Zuma, the former president of South Africa and a key figure in the ANC and now the MKP, is often reduced to a caricature. To his detractors, Zuma is the embodiment of corruption and poor governance. To his supporters, he is a champion of the poor and a victim of political persecution. A commentator who criticises Zuma’s handling of state capture and corruption is seen as brave and principled.

However, if the same commentator were to acknowledge Zuma’s role in the struggle against apartheid or his popularity among certain segments of the population, they would be accused of being an apologist for corruption. This black-and-white view of Zuma ignores the complexity of his legacy and the reasons for his enduring appeal.

The Role of the Commentator: Truth-Teller or Echo Chamber?

The role of a political commentator is to provide insight, analysis, and, where necessary, criticism. This role requires a commitment to truth, even when that truth is uncomfortable or unpopular. However, in South Africa, the commentator is often expected to function as an echo chamber, amplifying the views of a particular group or ideology. This expectation is particularly evident in the case of Julius Malema and the EFF.

Malema is a divisive figure, known for his fiery rhetoric and his calls for radical economic transformation. His supporters view him as a fearless leader who is unafraid to speak truth to power. His detractors see him as a demagogue who exploits racial tensions for political gain. A commentator who criticises Malema’s rhetoric or questions the feasibility of his policies is often accused of being out of touch with the realities of black South Africans. Conversely, a commentator who praises Malema’s ability to mobilise the youth and challenge the status quo is seen as pandering to populism. This polarised environment makes it difficult for commentators to engage with Malema and the EFF in a way that is both critical and fair.

Cyril Ramaphosa, the current president of South Africa and leader of the ANC, presents a different challenge. Ramaphosa is often portrayed as a reformist who is trying to clean up the ANC and restore public trust in government. However, his tenure has been marked by contradictions and unfulfilled promises. A commentator who praises Ramaphosa’s efforts to combat corruption and attract investment is seen as supportive of the ANC’s renewal project. However, if the same commentator were to criticise Ramaphosa for his handling of the economy or his failure to address unemployment, they would be accused of undermining the president and, by extension, the country. This expectation of unwavering support for Ramaphosa ignores the complexities of his presidency and the challenges he faces.

The Danger of Binary Thinking

The expectation of consistency in political commentary is not just a challenge for commentators; it is a danger to democracy. Binary thinking, the idea that one must be either for or against a particular politician, party, or policy; undermines the possibility of meaningful dialogue and compromise. It reduces complex issues to simplistic narratives, leaving little room for nuance or critical thinking.

For example, the DA is often portrayed as a party that represents the interests of white South Africans and the middle class. This portrayal ignores the party’s efforts to diversify its leadership and appeal to a broader electorate. A commentator who acknowledges these efforts is often accused of being a DA apologist. Conversely, a commentator who criticises the DA for its lack of transformation is seen as aligning themselves with the ANC or the EFF. This binary view of the DA fails to recognise the party’s role in providing a check on the ANC’s power and its potential to contribute to South Africa’s political landscape.

Similarly, the MKP, a relatively new player in South African politics, is often dismissed as a party of Zuma loyalists with no real policy agenda. This dismissal ignores the proven potential for the MKP to disrupt the political status quo and appeal to voters who feel disillusioned with the ANC. A commentator who explores this potential is often accused of giving legitimacy to a party that is seen as a threat to democracy. However, ignoring the MKP and its supporters risks alienating a significant portion of the electorate and perpetuating the divisions that already exist in South African society.

The Need for Intellectual Honesty

In a country as complex and divided as South Africa, intellectual honesty is not just a virtue; it is a necessity. Commentators have a responsibility to engage with the truth, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. This means being willing to criticise and praise the same politician or party, depending on the issue at hand. It means recognising the nuances and contradictions that define South African politics, rather than reducing them to simplistic narratives.

For example, a commentator might criticise Julius Malema for his inflammatory rhetoric while acknowledging his ability to mobilise young people and bring attention to issues of economic inequality. They might praise Cyril Ramaphosa for his efforts to combat corruption while questioning his ability to deliver on his promises of economic reform. They might acknowledge Helen Zille’s contributions to the DA while critiquing her comments on colonialism. And they might explore the potential of the MKP to disrupt the political landscape while questioning its commitment to democratic principles.

This approach requires courage and a willingness to challenge the expectations of the public. It requires a commitment to truth, even when that truth is uncomfortable or unpopular. And it requires a recognition that the role of the commentator is not to reinforce existing biases, but to challenge them.

Conclusion: A Call for Nuance and Critical Thinking

Political commentary in South Africa is a difficult and often thankless task. Commentators are expected to navigate a complex web of racial, socio-economic, and party-political loyalties, often at the expense of intellectual honesty. However, the role of the commentator is not to reinforce existing biases, but to challenge them. This requires a commitment to nuance, critical thinking, and intellectual honesty.

In a country as divided as South Africa, the need for honest, balanced commentary has never been greater. Commentators must be willing to engage with the complexities and contradictions of South African politics, rather than reducing them to simplistic narratives. They must be willing to criticise and praise the same politician or party, depending on the issue at hand. And they must be willing to challenge the expectations of the public, even when it is difficult or unpopular.

Only by embracing these principles can commentators hope to contribute to a more informed, nuanced, and ultimately more democratic South Africa.

(Dube is a political economist, businessman, and social commentator on Ukhozi FM. His views don't necessarily reflect those of the Sunday Tribune or Independent Media)