South Africans question the meaning of freedom

South Africans celebrated Freedom Day yesterday amid debates about what living in a free country has meant – given persistent poverty, inequality, unemployment and violent crime, among other setbacks. However, Dr Ongama Mtimka – from the Raymond Mhlaba Centre for Governance & Leadership at Nelson Mandela University – says what is new in the national debate is an intensified voice by parties and organisations who have styled themselves in rhetoric or deed as representatives of predominantly white constituencies. ‘Lobby groups like AfriForum and research agencies like the SA Institute of Race Relations – as well as leading figures in Afrikanerdom – have begun campaigning against what they call “142 race laws” in SA, which they argue are worse now than under apartheid.’ In his opinion piece on the Daily Maverick site, Mtimka points out that not only have the poor and unemployed – the majority of whom are black – been critical of what democracy and freedom have meant in the democratic period, ‘but even the representatives of those hitherto seen as wealthy and privileged have also begun questioning their freedom in SA’.

Mtimka argues the rise of Donald Trump and Elon Musk has resulted in a greater spotlight shining on race relations in SA. The plutocracy in the White House, he says, has used half-truths, false accusations and innuendo to force SA to fall in line with Washington’s preferences on the international stage. ‘These plutocrats have interpreted what is happening in SA in the same terms as “wokeness” and the programme of diversity, equity and inclusion in the US.’ He adds the social media posts of Musk and Trump coincided with an increasing agitation by leaders claiming to represent white – particularly Afrikaner – interests in the country. ‘I am certain that although the rise of Trump in Washington cannot be said to have been the genesis of moves by right-wing lobby groups to agitate for Afrikaner interests and tarnish SA’s reputation internationally, they have certainly been emboldened by it.’ Mtimka accepts there are domestic grievances that can be said to be legitimate enough to warrant some attention if SA’s commitment to creating a more united country is to be sustained:
* Many young white youths are opting to emigrate, either feeling alienated by redress policies when it comes to employment and business, or having tried to secure employment and failed to do so. However, these failures more likely to happen if you are black than white. Some white people are struggling with the idea that they are becoming ordinary in SA, instead of retaining their privileged position.
* The signing into law of the Expropriation Act, the National Health Insurance Act and the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act – despite the new Government of National Unity (GNU) – has irked lobby groups, which had thought the GNU conferred supervisory powers over the conduct of executive authority. Mtimka says these laws are not inherently anti-white in a general sense and would affect white elites rather than the average white person.
* There is the persistent discomfort raised by groups such as the Economic Freedom Fighters that create the impression that white people are not welcome in SA if land inequality persists.

Mtimka suggests the mutual feeling of displeasure with the status quo in SA presents us with a better platform for constructing a mutually beneficial future, because for once in the democratic period, both the rich and the poor and many in-betweens accept that things do not work. ‘The time has come for less finger-pointing and nostalgic remembrance of the “good old days” and more collaboration to overcome our collective challenges. This requires two things – more humility across the racial divide and more courage, compassion and boldness to offer solutions that can work.’