The GDP of flat earth politics

In a rather terse social media post last week, Zuko Godlimpi, a Johannesburg-based activist, ungenerously described “decolonisation” – one of the political phrases in popular vogue – as “the new slang in the corridors of mediocrity”.

Rather than being a mockery or an objection to the historical process of decolonisation, Godlimpi’s intervention sought to critique the imprecise and loose use of analytical concepts which passes often without asking the question: “What does it mean?”

Equally, imprecise readings of complex sociological and political phenomena can produce misdiagnoses and lead to deficient remedies whose consequences are discerned long after their effects have produced new realities.

Quite often, once a view is held as absolutely true in the subliminal imagination of groups or the wider society, its popularity intimidates all but the most determined critics.

Human society seems to share this attribute.

Referring to a similar phenomenon in the media, the British journalist Nick Davies coined the phrase “Flat Earth News” in his 2008 book of similar title: “A story appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true – even if it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda”.

Of the many widely held beliefs today is that the young must take centre stage of especially the political leadership – in fact displace the elderly who are publicly advised to retire to the playground to mind their grandchildren.

It is stated, more matter-of-factly than with evidence, that the youth are inherently revolutionary as opposed to their seniors who are said to have been rendered less if not wholly ineffectual by some conservative haemorrhaging over time.

The leadership that shepherded the country towards the 1994 dispensation failed to transform society for the better for reason of conservatism.

Relatedly or alternatively, the negotiated settlement was a sell-out which can only be overturned, so it is argued, by an inherently radical youth.

Scant regard is had to the objective limits and possibilities imposed on the political forces of both the right and left in SA and beyond in the early 1990s, the impact of the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall on both – all of which, and more, fused to produce 1994 and the SA we live in today.

The proposition that young people are naturally prone to a revolutionary political outlook and older folk intuitively conservative is not borne out by historical evidence.

Undoubtedly, many revolutionary movements and epochs in history – including in our own country – have had a fair degree of the participation and leadership of younger generations.

Their fervent endeavours were anchored not only on practical agitation but, importantly, the critical pursuit of ideas for a more just society.

As with the agitation, the ideas came from an intergenerational mix of activists who exuded a selflessness that was unmistakable in the content and manner of their speech as well as the way they conducted themselves privately and in public.

They appreciated that the colossal task of sustainable social change requires the coming together of all sections of society and not just one strata. While such an approach is itself revolutionary, it is not sufficient to produce revolution.

In fact, the test of its essence is in the quality of the ideas it puts forth, which may be supported or opposed by differently-minded young and old people, reflecting their respective outlooks and socialisation rather than their age.

Part of the challenge is finding a balance between three seemingly contradictory aphorisms: Matanzu maswa a tikwa nga malala – new hedge branches are stabilised by the old, Thoho thema i laya thoho tshena – the youth are capable of providing counsel to the elderly and Indlela ibuzwa kwabaphambili – those who have gone before are the guiding stars.

This deep collective wisdom suggests an organic exercise of leadership that acknowledges an inevitable intergenerational continuum in the pursuit of answers to society’s challenges, without supposing consensus.

Notwithstanding the burgeoning youth population, which is also cited as the reason for the need for the youth to take over the reins of leadership, the post-apartheid periods also suggests that young people in SA have always occupied positions of influential political leadership.

Examine the average age of cabinet ministers, the leadership of political parties and civil society formations since 1994 to date.

Why then the fever pitch agitation?

In a recent discussion with a prominent businessperson with interests across the continent, they lamented that the Gross Domestic Product of one of the countries in which they are invested had, over time, become politics.

This was as a result of low economic productivity which in turn precipitated a rent-seeking middle class that is locked in a deadly competition to become rulers more than leaders of their country.

Could it be that the failure of our economy to absorb greater numbers of young people into employment partly explains the agitation for the political take-over of leadership by the youth even if it is to be achieved by jettisoning those who may be older but might have valuable skills, experience and attributes to continue making positive contributions in formal politics?

Is it inconceivable that today’s proponents of youth leadership become tomorrow’s evangelists for older and experienced pair of hands?

Assuming the answers to these questions is yes, does the political and corporate leadership appreciate this development as something worth pondering over – one of our country’s potential risks to stability and the sustainability of democracy?

But this is a subject of another column.

So, no revolutionary perspective assumes its status by decree.

Certainly one which omits meditation over the confluence of the local and global factors that account for present social conditions – including evolution and development of its institutional expression – risks a detour into the cul-de-sac of flat earth politics or, as Godlimpi posits, continue to wallow in the linguistic shallow grounds of slang.

It is thus unlikely to correct the mistakes, ills of leadership and intolerable societal trajectory it correctly points to.

– Ratshitanga is a social and political commentator (mukonit@gmail.com)

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.