COLUMN: Steenhuisen’s Ukraine trip was much more justifiable than described in the media

Researchers have detected a new subvariant of whataboutism that seems resistant to injections of truth.

Whataboutism is a type of logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by alleging hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving a viewpoint.

When Democratic Alliance leader John Steenhuisen headed for Ukraine last week there was a rash of “what about” tweets.

What about conditions in the Cape Flats, flood-damaged KwaZulu-Natal or pot-holed Johannesburg where the DA leads a coalition?

What about conflicts elsewhere in Africa, or the Middle East?

And so on. Such statements, which are easily picked apart, are not logical counterarguments to Steenhuisen’s stated reason for the trip.

It should not be surprising that any DA leader would follow the late Helen Suzman’s dictum: “Go and see for yourself.”

And there is much to see without news media filters.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the defining conflict of our age, is already having a profound impact on South Africans.

Critics who make snide remarks about the price of cooking oil may not grasp how this is affecting poor and middle-class South Africans.

And no one should underestimate the damage being inflicted here by the high energy prices resulting from the war.

There’s also the matter of being on the right side of history.

If we were to rely on spineless President Cyril Ramaphosa and his minions to project the South African stance, the rest of the world might think we’re all Vladimir Putin’s useful idiots.

We can be thankful that the leader of the opposition went to Ukraine representing South Africans who don’t support the invading war criminals.

ALSO READ: South Africans still questioning Steenhuisen’s trip to Ukraine

Petty critics of Steenhuisen like to mention his lack of tertiary education. But he is no fool. There are few South Africans who can match his sharp, on-point debating skills.

He didn’t go to Ukraine on some misguided whim.

It’s not an error of judgment. Perhaps the most astute observation thus far comes from critic Adriaan Basson.

After the usual obligatory jibes about less than optimal electoral performance and exit of black leaders from the DA, Basson reckons Steenhuisen “could have his own long game: positioning himself as the next president of South Africa.

“Come the 2024 election, Steenhuisen will use pictures of him on the ground in war-torn Ukraine, meeting with local citizens and politicians, juxtaposed with Ramaphosa shaking hands with Putin at the latest Brics shindig.

“It’s hard to imagine today, but not completely outside the realm of possibility, that Steenhuisen and the DA could lead a coalition government after the 2024 national election.”

Of course, when the matter is debated in parliament before 2024, Steenhuisen will have ample ammunition to demonstrate who is on the side of the oppressed.

This won’t stop the “whatabouters” and predictable, unnecessarily anti-DA, media bias.

Some of the comments about Steenhuisen’s trip carry a whiff of misdirected malice which can be puzzling.

Why keep carping at the only non-xenophobic, competent, anticorruption party that can save South Africa from a terrible fate?

Don’t let whataboutism cloud your judgment. You know which is the right side of history.