"Who is Really the Foot-licker of White Capital?"

[Hylton White <hjwhite1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since list-members have been discussing the problems of nationalism,
imperialism and the left, it might be interesting to look through this
commentary on a speech by South African president Thabo Mbeki, which
appears on today's Mail and Guardian pages (http://www.mg.co.za . What do
list-members think of Mbeki's "African Renaissance" card, which has been
trumpeted both in Africa and in West for several years now? Personally, I
find the connection of calls for economic liberalization along with
cultural renewal indistinguishable from Thatcherism, but many black
intellectuals in South Africa have found this line inspirational as they
struggle against a white and racist "old guard" entrenched in positions of
power at government offices, universities and, of course, corporations.

September 6, 2000: Who is really the foot-licker of white capital?

Since Thabo Mbeki became president, he has implemented socio-economic
policies that may be regarded as pro-white capital to the detriment of the
African majority, Jeffrey Ndumo argues.

During the Oliver Tambo Memorial Lecture, on August 11 2000, President
Thabo Mbeki delivered a fierce speech which had two main themes. The first
was to chastise the "black petit bourgeoisie" and native intellectuals for
reducing themselves to the status of foot-lickers of white capital at the
expense of a contribution to the restoration of the pride of the African
majority. The second, with the help of a quotation from William
Shakespeare, was to accuse a white political party leader of wittingly
perpetuating racism and white prejudice. Stripped of its pretentious
erudition and flexing of intellectual muscles, Mbeki's speech reveals
misconceptions, contradictions and a shallow understanding of the issues
raised. Treating Mbeki's view at face value, of course, no one can disagree
with his call for a "humanist native intellectual". But to what extent is
the president really committed to this course?

The historian Isaac Deutscher once insisted that the role of intellectuals
is to remain eternal protestors: to maintain opposition to the powers that
be, to militate against the taboos and conventions, to struggle for a
society in which nationalism, domination, exploitation and racism will at
last lose their hold on the human mind. Thus, it goes without saying that
to maintain opposition to the powers that be involves opposing the ruling
party. Ironically, since Mbeki successfully captured the levers of
political power, he has himself implemented socio-economic policies that
may be regarded as pro-white capital to the detriment of the African
majority. One does not need to be a social scientist to realise that the
growth, employment and redistribution strategy, Igoli 2002 and other
neo-conservative policies are, in fact, entrenching apartheid racial
inequalities, instead of restoring the pride of the African majority.
According to figures released by Statistics South Africa on income
distribution, the poorest, who constitute the bulk of the African
population, get only 3% of total income compared to 63% of total income
that goes to the richest 20%, who constitute the bulk of the white
community. The macro-economic policy promised the delivery of 409 000 jobs
by 2000. As it stands, the unemployment rate is estimated at 37,6%, with
certain regions experiencing higher rates - African women and youth are
particularly hard hit. The majority of unemployed African people (69,2%)
have never worked.

This damning picture also makes a mockery of the central object of the
"African renaissance", namely, to improve the lives of the African people.
Undoubtedly, if the African populace is unemployed, poor and pauperised,
their dignity is highly compromised. When some native intellectuals, both
within the ranks of the alliance of the African National Congress, the
South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade
Unions and the broader civil society raised opposition to these policies,
they found a less than sympathetic response from our president. In fact, to
the amazement of many, what they found was a president not hesitant to
utilise his newly found powers to marginalise and silence these voices.
Ironically, an undemocratic and totalitarian vocabulary emerged from our
president's lips - government policy is non-negotiable. So, who is really
the foot-licker of white capital?

One is tempted to remind the president of a point that should be fairly
obvious to a leader of his calibre: that it is not his prerogative to
prescribe what African intellectuals should think. Not every African
intellectual, for example, needs to embrace Mbeki's two-nation thesis - two
nations, one poor and black, and the other rich and white - as an approach,
to enable him/her to destroy the old and to build the qualitatively and
quantitatively new. Indeed, this is a narrow and poor understanding of the
complex problems confronting South Africa. There is gender, age, class and,
of course, racial inequality in South Africa, which cannot simply be
addressed through the spectacles of a two-nation thesis. Instead of falsely
bemoaning the withdrawal of the African intellectual from the public
discourse, the president would be better served to review his own policies
and practices towards this social category and the African populace in
general. He speaks of the need to empower these social groups while,
practically, he does the opposite. While racism is self-evidently a serious
problem in South Africa, Mbeki's use of it as a political tool appears to
reflect a growing insecurity on his part. Are Mbeki's use of the race card
and his attack on the "foot-lickers" not perhaps the words of a man who is
increasingly insecure about the main thrust of his presidency: the
implementation of conservative economic policies on behalf of a socialist
liberation movement?

In biblical terms, I sincerely believe that what we are dealing with here
is the case of a Goliath who must make an effort to humble himself rather
than allowing the Davids out there to do it for him. Put differently,
without any doubt, South Africa unfortunately has a president who suffers
from a delusion that I would call "superiority complex syndrome".

Jeffrey Ndumo is a researcher at the Centre for the Study of Violence and
Reconciliation. The views expressed here are his own


-- The Mail&Guardian, September 6, 2000.



Hylton White

Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago
1126 East 59th St., Chicago IL 60637; (773) 493-3881
hjwhite1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx