A quick recap for those who aren’t following South African politics: we had an election this year, and the governing party (the ANC) did poorly enough that they were forced to join a tetchy, but so far steady, coalition (a term used loosely) with the DA and (many) other parties.
The DA – as the second-largest partner – only grew by 1% against the ANC’s 17% decline in these elections, so even though it is now in the National Government, that’s less from a position of strength, rather than of (the ANC’s) necessity.
Having been unable to secure any significant portion of the voters leaving the ANC, and with Jacob Zuma’s MK party growing from nonexistence to 15%, it cannot be under any illusions that it has secured anything more than an audition – voters don’t like it any more than they did last time, and the ANC votes left for a party that is even further from the liberal values the DA asserts than the ANC is.
Recap over. In light of all the above, and South Africa’s political history, it was remarkable to see the DA leader, John Steenhuisen, appointed as the Minister of Agriculture. He’s assertive, which is of course “abrasive” to others, and he’s a white man who has (usually unfairly, and often cruelly) been the subject of criticism for his lack of tertiary education.
So, in a country debating land reclamation, and arguing about whether farm murders are “genocide”; or instead simply horrible but nevertheless being treated just as competently or incompetently as any other crime in this country, the in-your-face white man (who some people think doesn’t have the education for the job), and who leads a (stagnant) party with a reputation (often unfairly gained, but not always) for racial insensitivity, becomes head of the relevant Ministry.
And this in the context of support for the racial nationalism of the MK party skyrocketing, and where the moderate rump within the ANC (or anywhere else) doesn’t show much appetite for supporting the DA.
So if you wanted to use this audition to demonstrate, from the inside, that the DA can be trusted to be concerned about all South Africans, particularly the ones who don’t live in the Wokeverse some of you intend to destroy (once they are able to credibly define and find it), it’s surely an obviously terrible idea to appoint someone who has fashioned themselves as a shock-jock as your Chief of Staff, as Steenhuisen just did with Roman Cabanac?
I’ve got no issues with Cabanac himself, and have had many quite enjoyable afternoons with him. And it doesn’t matter that we would (if we spoke of the things mentioned above) often disagree. It does matter – but I don’t think very much – that Steenhuisen and others in the DA do agree with him, because we know that already, and also that there are still many in the DA who would not agree with him.
Mostly, what matters is that it doesn’t seem very smart to introduce a lightning-rod for public scorn unless you know that the possible costs outweigh the possible benefits. This might well be the case for e.g. a once-celebrated but now disreputable politico, but is unlikely to be so for someone whose only appearance on the political radar was via the Purple Cow party, where one can imagine the planning/strategy sessions having consumed far more human attention than could be traced in the electorate’s consciousness.
It’s not only the lack of experience, and that isn’t a conclusive signal in any case. More of a signal, perhaps, is the recent scrubbing of Tweets and YouTube videos from his accounts, which one would hope candidates for such significant positions would typically not need to do.
Also, one might hope that you’d be able to find someone inside the party who has the same experience, but without baggage such as seemingly being in Ernst Roets’ camp on the farm murder issue; and being inclined to include the following in his response to the appointment:
I am very comfortable with the appointment because fortunately, there are not many woke people at the department of agriculture as we are here to work. I am, therefore, not bothered if the woke crowd is critical of my appointment. [City Press, first link above.]
Some on social media are asking about hypocrisy regarding cadre deployment, and sure, you could go that route, because it’s not obviously wrong that even the possible perception of that should have killed this idea. But it’s not necessarily cadre deployment at all – Steenhuisen (and Zille, of course) might sincerely believe that he’s the best candidate, and it’s that profound lack of judgment that is of more concern to me.
There’s some evidence of agreement with Zille, for example from Cabanac’s glowing review of Zille’s book “Stay Woke, Go Broke”. Agreement here is unfortunately not a good thing, as you can read in my review of the same book, but is also evidenced by comment like:
Her definition of Wokeness is quite apt:
”The politics of racial and cultural identity mobilised to advance economic and political interests of marginalised groups.”
On the face of it, this definition fits neatly into that of classical Marxism, but the differences between wokeness and Marxism are distinct. Marxism employs a heavy reliance on class warfare, whereas Wokeness uses intersectionality.
Sure, if you understand Marxism in that – very wrong – way, you’ll find the connection you seek, and be able to prop up your definition of Wokeness among yourselves. And I agree that identity politics can be incredibly corrosive to social health, but at some point you folks have to grapple with the fact that the anti-woke have long been as much of a cult as the woke.
I don’t think people should start ranting to Zille, Steenhuisen or Cabanac about this, not only because they won’t care, but because they won’t care until data show that they should. And I understand that. Nevertheless, Cuomo’s line “you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose” comes to mind, because – as audition – I’m seeing this through the “campaign” lens, where this particular poem is arguably worse than all those read at that Eisteddfod in 1982.
His review concludes with the following:
I agree with Zille on all of the book’s main points except for her chosen solution – building a pragmatic centre. … Appealing to the better, rational angels of our nature will ensure that we will, in fact, go broke.
Anyone who has read anything of mine would know how strongly I’d disagree with that. Still, perhaps he has crossed some threshold of cynicism I’m yet to find, and maybe I’ll get there in time. And, I’m reasonably confident in thinking he’ll do a good prose job, and that would in fact be his job.
These sentiments might well be those of many in the party leadership, but the thing is – unless one already subscribes to the “existential threat” version of “wokeness” or “Marxism” – they are not at all attractive to me, in terms of what they say about both acumen, and humanism.
