|
Introduction
We are here to honour Helen Suzman’s memory whose life was the
embodiment of integrity in all respects. Hers was a tough time in
the life of our nation. But she did not shy away from making
those tough calls that leaders who leave a deep imprint on society are
called to make.
For Nelson Mandela, her contemporary, it was a matter of commitment to
ideals of freedom for which he was prepared to die. For a
much younger man, Stephen Biko, it was a matter of honouring an idea
worth dying for rather than live for ideas that would die. Helen
Suzman’s ideals drove her from her comfort zone as an upper middle
class suburban white South African to stand for a more just
society.
All signs in our society point to the need for us to take stock and
ask ourselves fundamental questions about how we have been able to
discharge our responsibilities to honour the ideals we enshrined in our
founding constitution. We stand at a crossroads yet again as a
society struggling to emerge from the growing pains of being a young
democracy.
It is fair to say that much more is
asked of us that we have given over the last decade and a half.
We all grossly underestimated the task of transforming ourselves into a
democratic society. We did not reflect enough on the paradigm
shift it would entail given our pre-1994 histories. Nor did we
appreciate the complexities embedded in our diverse starting points in
our journey to the new dispensation. TRC process was a bridge that
allowed us to cross over the turbulent waters of our past. But
much more work remains to deal with the unfinished business of growing
into the nation we dared to dream to become.
The women of Crossroads are yet to wipe away their tears. The
social pain of past and ongoing humiliation at the hands of public
servants undermines whatever self-respect many of them have clung to
over the last 15 years. The extortions they endure from
unscrupulous moneylenders as they try to keep body and souls together
leave them in a state of permanent anxiety.
The issue we face now is how we rediscover the ideals for which so
many have sacrificed their lives and devoted so much energy? How do we
wrestle with the inherent tensions in choosing integrity in public life
as individuals, public servants, business people and community
activists? How do we follow Helen’s example and stand out above
the fray and pressures from peers to lead lives characterised by
integrity?
What is Integrity in Public Life?
Integrity is defined as that which is beyond reproach, fully
honourable and trustworthy. But in public life such a definition
is inadequate. The complex issues inherent in integrity are best
dealt with by standing outside the obvious formulations.
Theodore Sturgeon takes an interesting approach to this issue in a
1953 novel entitled The Wages of Synergy. He constructs a
dialogue between a wise man and a youngster:
“An act can be both moral and ethical. But under some
circumstances a moral act can be counter to ethics, and an ethical act
can be immoral.”
“I am with you so far,” he (the youngster) said.
“Morals and ethics are survival urges, both of them. But look:
an individual must survive within his group, The problems of survival
within the group are morals.”
“Gotcha.” And ethics?” (The youngster probes further).
“Well the group itself must survive, as a unit. The patterns of
an individual within the group, toward the end of group survival, are
ethics.”
Cautiously he (the youngster) said, “You’d better go on a bit.”
“You’ll see it in a minute. Now, morals can dictate a pattern to
a man such that he survives within the group itself may have no
survival value. For example, in some societies it is immoral not to eat
human flesh. But to refrain from it would be ethical, because
that would be toward group survival. See. ”
Helen Suzman’s life stands as an example of one who wrestled with
matters of ethics and morality in a complex political context.
She did not shy away from breaking with family expectations of moral
choices for a young Jewish woman. Nor did she refrain from making
ethical choices that demonstrated courage to follow patterns in her
life that went against conventions of “her group.” She was able
to see the folly of what was regarded as “good morals for the survival
of the group” to borrow Sturgeon’s formulation.
South Africans tend to have short memories about recent social
history. Remember the “Immorality Act”? Here was an example
of what was seen as “moral for the survival of the group” namely
prohibition of intermarriage between white and black people in order to
protect white supremacy. Only the most courageous were able to
make the ethical choice of crossing the colour line to follow their
hearts. For the majority of South Africans private choice of
partner was sacrificed on the altar of “moral expectations of the
group.” Some were even prepared to lead unethical double
lives of lies and deceit in the name of morality apartheid style.
But awful as the Immorality Act was, it was not the most damaging
racist law. The worst damage was wrought by the Migrant Labour
System and its corollary, the Influx Control Act that systematically
destroyed the foundations of indigenous African family life.
Africans were reduced to units of labour as a “moral act for the
survival of the group” that stood to benefit from their economic
exploitation.
Helen Suzman’s courage was most memorable in fighting a lone battle
against this inequity. She was not intimidated as a lone voice:
only woman, only opposition MP, only defender of human rights of those
without a voice. Hers was an ethical stand in the face of
overwhelming belief by white people that these were essential laws for
their survival as a group in a country with a predominantly black
population.
There was little reflection on the absurdity of the belief that “group
survival” of a small white segment of the population on a continent
where such attempts fail could be sustained by such “moral patterns of
behaviour.” Few white people questioned the survival value
proposition that was the dominant paradigm of the time. Most were
seduced by the “swartgevaar” rhetoric.
|
Of all the witty statements Helen
Suzman made in Parliament the one that is most apt for the subject of
this Memorial Lecture is: “I have been sitting here and watching a
shiver traversing the green benches in search of a spine to crawl up
on!” She was to have to watch for a long time indeed.
Ethical behaviour was soundly trumped by the morality of “group
think.”
The question before us now is what frame of reference have we been,
and are we currently using to make choices as citizens of this
democracy. What paradigm underpins our conduct in public life? Is
it group morality or is it ethics? How do we respond to
pressure to sustain the patterns of acts driven by group
morality? How is this group moral pattern of acts in line with
the values of our human rights constitution?
Integrity, Ideals and Citizenship
Our society is bleeding. The social pain endured by those who
have remained marginal in our society has burst into greater and louder
protests in our streets. Human beings are “hardwired to connect”
which in our lexicon we have translated into Ubuntu. Growing
research evidence points to fact that people’s need for connectedness
is just as essential as air, food, and water . Exclusion
from one’s society has thus a devastating impact on one. In
addition scientists believe that the reason why the physical pain and
social pain mechanisms are super imposed in bio-physical processes in
the brain and possibly other yet unknown body mechanisms related to
adaptation and evolution.
We have not focused enough on the costs
of exclusion and marginalization for those people still living in
poverty and deprivation. In addition, what development efforts
have been made have been driven by a paradigm that does not address the
self-worth and self-respect side of social pain of living in an unequal
society. RDP houses that are shoddily constructed by politically
connected winners of tenders are an additional affront to what is left
of their dignity. Disrespect by public officials and loss of life
due to uncaring health professionals weigh heavily on those excluded
from the fruits of freedom. It is accepted world wide that too great a
degree of inequality makes human community impossible. Our
democracy is at risk from the level of inequality that is exacerbated
by patterns of actions that are unethical.
The media is overflowing with reports
of corruption, nepotism and looting of public resources. A
culture of impunity has taken root over the last decade due to the
failure of those in authority to hold officials involved in these
behaviours accountable. The deployment policy of the ANC that has
packed public services with incompetent politically connected people
has undermined the institutional culture of our public service.
The good officials are demoralized, and may have left or are leaving
the service. Appointing and promoting people beyond their levels
of competence not only break the law in terms of the Public Service
Act, but fail the ethics test. The public good is undermined by
imperatives of the “morality of the Party and its survival.” It
is encouraging that some leaders of the ANC are urging a shift from
this perverse incentive system.
The same “group morality” operates in the private sector. How
else can one explain the participation of the private sector in corrupt
and nepotistic deals? What of anti-competitive practices that
artificially push up prices for basic foods and services that
negatively affect poor people disproportionately?
What Legacy?
What are we to tell our grand children and their children about the
choices we have made over the last decade and a half of our
democracy? Are we going to be able to look with confidence to
handing over to the next generation a society we are proud of?
What would we say about our silences in the face of “group morals”
trumping ethics in public policy and practice? HIV/AIDS
denialism; Education under-performance; and corruption in high
places? What about our inaction in the face of outrageous
statements by young political leaders? Shoot to kill University
of Free State Prof. Jonathan Jansen! Professor Kader Asmal must
just die!
We are at a crossroads as a society. We need to make a second
transition to strengthen the institutions of our democracy to enlarge
the political space for more citizens to make ethical choices. We
need to identify constraints that may limit this space. We should
not shy away from what may look like holy cows, including our
constitution.
The provision of our world renowned national constitution for
proportional representation without the counter-balancing constituency
representation mechanism has the unintended consequence of weakening
the voice of the voters. The resulting strong role played by
parties in allocating positions within Parliament and in the executive
branch of government, disempowers citizens. Our electoral and
parliamentary systems unintentionally promote “group morality” by
giving too much power to political parties, with a resultant weakening
of incentives for ethical choices.
Citizens need to work with those in the ANC who are proposing reviving
the Report of the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission on Electoral Reform to
get a constitutional amendment passed through Parliament before the
next National and Provincial elections. Preserving and
strengthening our democracy depend on it.
Conclusion
Ours is a great country but we owe it to the memory of Helen Suzman to
create a vibrant polity driven not by group think, but by ethics.
The integrity that marked Helen Suzman’s political career is in serious
need of revival and strengthening. That is the least she would
expect of us.
Mamphela Ramphele
3/11/09
|
Who We Are
