Things to learn from Dlamini-Zuma’s public lynching

The public lynching of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma over the continued suspension of cigarette sales has been truly remarkable.

Attempts have been made, even by those who should know better, to project the cigarette regulations as Dlamini-Zuma’s personal invention.

Some media commentators have gone so far as to suggest that she should not be trusted in anything she says or does, dragging – albeit kicking and screaming – all manner of incidents in the past 26 years of her tutelage in public life as proof of her supposed inherent untrustworthiness.

Probably taking their cue from the authoritative figures in the commentariat tribe, some social media entries have been more slovenly in their vituperation.

In the process, we are hopefully learning something about the power of bogus arguments drawn from material in the wider social and political spaces, which seem apposite factors in explaining government decisions and indecisions, but altogether irrelevant.

Note, for instance, how nearly every commentary makes reference to Dlamini-Zuma’s 2017 contest against President Cyril Ramaphosa for the ANC presidential campaign. Or South Africa’s so-called “first corruption scandal, Sarafina II”.

These incidents are undeniably part of Dlamini-Zuma’s political biography, but they have nothing to do with government’s decision to extend the suspension on the sale of cigarettes.

They are relevant only to the extent that, in their wisdom, some deem it effective to target and isolate individual political office bearers in order to extract concessions which the power of persuasion might otherwise not secure.

Back in 2000, British journalist and academic, Will Hutton, bemoaned the British media obsession with “unmasking hypocrisy in ferocious exposes” and argued that the media was “at risk of destroying the democracy that journalism seeks to protect”. His piece was appropriately titled: “Never mind facts, let’s have a scandal.”

The problem with the current anti-Dlamini-Zuma narrative is that it ignores the facts, creates not so much a scandal as in a cheap democratic discourse and the democratic process in at least four ways.

Firstly, it personalises the policy space, a temptation that must be avoided lest we render the governance process an impotent slave to vested interests, weak and strong now and in the future.

Government policy is government policy and not the property of incumbent office bearers, unless it can be evidentially established that the office bearer is on a frolic of their own.

In this particular instance, government Covid-19 regulations state that: “The Cabinet minister responsible for cooperative governance and traditional affairs [shall] upon the recommendation of the Cabinet member responsible for health and in consultation with Cabinet, declare which of the following alert levels apply and the extent to which they apply at a national, provincial, metropolitan or district level.”

Secondly, and controversially, those who are praised by way of comparison with others who are deemed ogres of sorts, can end up, so to speak, being killed by misguided kindness.

They can potentially be isolated from the political constituencies on whose support their political careers and ability to carry difficult political decisions depend. Their constituencies can come to believe, wrongly, that the object of praise acts on behalf of a coterie of praise singers rather than the national interest.

This can also cause needless discord which renders the social cohesion required most especially in times of crisis that is much elusive to our collective detriment. For leaders of the various sectors of society who profess commitment to the country’s stability and those who have something to lose, this is something to watch since South Africa’s racial and political divisions are such that for a considerable period of time, the message, as with the message carrier, will continue to be just as important.

Thirdly, it incarcerates us into unhelpful dichotomies of either/ or and can inspire a bureaucratic closure of ranks in which the targets of undue ridicule dig in their heels to enforce decisions even if there is justifiable grounds for reconsideration.

This is because the issues cease to be the subject matter. They assume a personal texture and the issue becomes one of defending attack against personal affronts.

Fourthly, it illustrates how the factional dilemmas within the party-political spaces, in particular the ruling party, cascade into the governance and wider social spaces. Put differently, the factionalism that bedevils political parties seems to have become the collective property of important loci of power in our society, with potentially negative implications for governance.

This is a controversial claim, but one which merits open and honest discussion if we are to overcome the real and abiding challenges that face the country and will continue to do so into the future.

In the process, much as it should be expected that each one of us will continue to pursue their sectoral interests, there is value in cultivating a culture of staying focused on the bigger picture, the national interest, without which we might all be consumed in unhelpful and collective self-injurious sideshows.

The challenges imposed by the Covid-19 global crisis are and will be far-reaching. They do not easily lend themselves to gross oversimplifications or narrow sectoral and factional interests.

It should be possible, in fact it is desirable, to discuss the government’s Covid-19 lockdown regulations and their health, social, economic, political and other implications without resorting to shrill either/or narratives of devils and angels.

With respect to the sale of cigarettes, as with other products, practical life will sooner or later impose a balance between health, economic and other dimensions such as breathing more life into the illicit cigarette trade, which robs government of much-needed revenue while people continue to smoke anyway, thus defeating the regulations.

These are some of the issues that we are supposed to be talking about. The fact that we do not talk about them does not mean that they are not manifesting.

This week, one learnt that some residents of a village in Limpopo are now brewing beer in the thicket of the jungle. Of course the police will continue to enforce the law. To what end?

Mukoni Ratshitanga.

• Ratshitanga is a consultant, social and political commentator. (mukoni@interlinked.co.za)

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