The Times
*Using 'paranoia' label is a way to shut debate**Jeremy Cronin, SACP deputy general secretary, The Times, Johannesburg, 1 December 2010*
I agree with Justice Malala that there are signs that tolerance of critical and intelligent political debate is under strain: "Why should civil society shut up?" (November 29). But why?
Malala believes it is a government and ruling party paranoid aversion to any criticism. He argues that my own recent intervention in the SACP's Umsebenzi provides a "master class" in exactly this paranoia.
Malala completely misconstrues the spirit and content of my intervention, and the misconstruing is itself a master-class in a reason for the stifling of debate.
In my Umsebenzi article I welcomed Cosatu's initiative in convening a "civil society" conference to discuss, among other things, the scourge of corruption.
I have absolutely no problem with anybody being critical of government, or the ruling party, or the alliance. As a member of all three, I, along with my colleagues, also have a responsibility to be self-critical.
The central question I was raising in my Umsebenzi article had nothing to do with anybody's right to convene a meeting, or raise criticisms. My concern was, rather, the paradigm, the often invisible framing assumptions that inform criticism.
When the DA criticises the ANC-led government (as is its right to do), I expect this criticism to be framed by an anti-majoritarian liberalism that believes that the market, rather than a democratically elected government, should set the strategic agenda. A DA criticism of the government is also likely to be tinged with the Afro-pessimism of its core constituency, and anchored in a belief that our constitution is essentially about protecting existing privileges rather than a clarion call for thorough-going transformation.
It is a paradigm that can be summarised as: "You see what happens when they take over".
Sadly, the Democratic Alliance seldom disappoints these expectations.My concern is that, increasingly, and often in unexpected places, versions of this paradigm are starting to exercise sway over historically progressive formations and left-leaning NGOs.
For instance, political commentator and participant in the Cosatu conference Prince Mashele tells us concerns about the strategic objective of the conference (which he chooses to misinterpret as criticism of the right to convene such a conference) indicate we're now immersed in the inevitable "dirty politics of post-colonial Africa. We are a typical post-colonial African state".
This level of lazy, generalised cynicism suggests the degree to which right-wing liberal ideas might have achieved hegemony among some who supposedly represent a new South African progressive intelligentsia.
When any attempt to engage in debate with the framing assumptions behind the arguments of Mashele or Malala gets disqualified as "paranoia", then I wonder: Who actually is shutting down debate?
*From: http://www.timeslive.co.za/iLIVE/article791699.ece/Using-paranoia-label-is-a-way-to-shut-debate*
** ** -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] .
<<image/jpeg>>
