“MOST of us were trained to critique the state, but now we are the state”, quipped businessman, Moss Ngoasheng participating in a discussion at a seminar organised by the Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (Mistra) on the role of intellectuals in post-apartheid South Africa.
Put differently, Ngoasheng was essentially saying that the intelligentsia, that had been part of the anti-apartheid movement, now faces a dilemma: What becomes of their role now that South Africa is a democratic society? Do they critique the very post-apartheid state they brought into life? If so, how and from where?
Whilst highlighting the predicament, Ngoasheng’s remark also revealed an acceptance and a conviction that intellectuals must assume a visible, meaningful role in society.
What is required now, however, is a re-imagining of a different role to the one they’ve played previously. This requires an emotional detachment from the African nationalist movement in order to enable a dispassionate intellectual treatment of governance and leadership conduct.
Severing the emotive ties may be a mammoth task not only because of their historic nature, but also because of what the fate of the present-day society implies for the meaning of blackness.
African nationalism had both intellectual origin and leadership. It was led by intellectuals who imagined the union differently to the unkind society it was becoming. Their notion of nonracial citizenship for instance, reflected a different world. Theirs was a meeting point between the white and black world. Their moral convictions wouldn’t allow them to acquiesce to a dichotomous conception of humankind: a superior “whiteness”, on the one hand, and an inferior “blackness”, on the other.
And their professional achievements in the various fields, despite all the odds ranged against them, nullified racist prejudice of an inferior, subhuman other.
Not only did the nationalist intellectuals conceptualise society differently, but they also invented the instruments to bring their vision into life. Newspapers and political organisation were among such instruments of societal change.
Through newspapers such as, for example, Imvo Zabantsundu, Izwi Labantu, Ilanga, Tsala ea Batswana and Abantu-Batho – they communicated their ideas and mobilised the rest of society behind their cause. Perhaps even more important was that newspapers cultivated a new citizenry for a future post-apartheid society.
They helped craft a national identity amongst dispersed people, each confined to their own ethnic enclaves. In reading about their common experiences and history, they began to identify with each other transcending their ethnic identities and narrow geographic spaces.
If the newspapers introduced distant ethnic groups to each other, organisational involvement brought them into physical contact. The national footprint of the ANC was especially useful in ensuring that each ethnic group and part of the country formed part of the nationalist movement.
Such contacts and regular interactions sapped ethnic prejudices and enabled trans-ethnic ties to form. Individuals began to imagine themselves not only in ethnic terms and as subjects, but also as Africans and citizens of a nation-state.
The point therefore, is that the democratic breakthrough was also a triumph of the intellect.
This is not to downplay the importance of mass mobilisation. Victory would not have been possible without the involvement of the masses of the downtrodden. But, that involvement was organised around, and steered by, a particular set of ideas.
It is through ideas that society changes and progresses.
At another level however, the democratic moment has also represented a challenge. Admittedly it has provided the space and resources to realise the objective of a new, caring society. But this did not imply the end of a role for the intellectual. Intellectual prowess remained critical in order to translate the vision into “a better life for all”.
Quite a number of intellectuals were consequently drawn into the state apparatus to apply their intellect and energy to transforming society.
Location within the state however, did not allow for an unhindered expression of intellectual activity. This is because political power operates on a different logic. It is pre-occupied with sustaining itself. This makes it averse to self-criticism, but predisposes it towards self-legitimation. It seeks validation over critique. Intellectual engagement, therefore, is constrained.
Added to the structural constraints is the pseudo moral superiority to which liberation movements are susceptible.
Because they led a just cause and made personal sacrifices, the nationalist-intellectuals that became government leaders then delude themselves into believing they are beyond rebuke.
Besides the delusions of grandeur, intolerance for criticism also seeks to conceal ignominy. From being liberation fighters some turn into plunderers of public resources. Self-indulgence takes priority over public service. Honest critique then becomes a nuisance.
Under such circumstances, intellectuals both within the state and society in general, become silent, if not marginalised.
In other instances, silence has to do with subsistence. People just don’t want to lose their jobs or consultancy contracts. One is not only an intellectual, but also a spouse and/or parent with bills and schools fees to pay. Kids don’t eat ideas.
Ultimately though, power is not infallible however much it thinks of itself. Intellectual scrutiny remains critical. The implementation of policies requires intellectual interrogation and new policies are needed. All of this needs an intellectually inclined bureaucrat, free to express her views and open to engagement with the intellectual community outside the state apparatus.
This is not to suggest that the political elite has been entirely hostile to the intelligentsia. They do engage in discussions with intellectuals now and then. Before the recent elections for instance, Luthuli House organised a few round-table discussions. Another followed after the elections. This reflects appreciation of the role of intellectuals in society.
The problem though, is that the party-in-government seeks to determine the terms of engagement. It’s not keen on an open-ended reflection that includes the concerns of the intellectuals.
The pre-election discussions for instance, were geared towards winning the intellectuals over in the hope of gaining sympathetic public commentary for electoral purposes.
It was soon realised however, that there are much more pressing matters in our country than the ANC’s election manifesto. A commitment was then made to engage regularly and beyond electoral cycles. That commitment hasn’t been followed up, however. I suspect the interactions will be revived just before the 2016 local elections.
Creating a vibrant intellectual culture is not a responsibility that lies only with the political elite. Intellectuals also have to avail themselves and assume a public role. Seclusion in universities is not sufficient.
University plays an important role in cultivating an intellectual mind. But that intellect together with the research it generates must also be applied on public issues. Doing this not only improves the quality of public policies but also creates a deliberative culture.
Democracy flourishes where there’s a culture of critical and vigorous debate.
And for the progressive and nationalist intellectuals critical engagement is not betrayal. Politicians can be conceited in thinking the fate of the republic rests solely on their shoulders. Nothing could be further from the truth. The success of our society is a collective objective.
Mismanagement is not only an indictment on the ruling elite, but is also misconstrued to perpetuate racial stereotypes. Failures are taken as validation of racial inferiority. “Blacks can’t rule”, is the refrain in some quarters.
A shared ambition however, doesn’t imply racial solidarity. The role of the intellectual is to insist on the ethical exercise of power.
Dr Mcebisi Ndletyana is head of the political economy faculty at Mistra
Whither to black intellectuals?
Put differently, Ngoasheng was essentially saying that the intelligentsia, that had been part of the anti-apartheid movement, now faces a dilemma: What becomes of their role now that South Africa is a democratic society? Do they critique the very post-apartheid state they brought into life? If so, how and from where?
Whilst highlighting the predicament, Ngoasheng’s remark also revealed an acceptance and a conviction that intellectuals must assume a visible, meaningful role in society.
What is required now, however, is a re-imagining of a different role to the one they’ve played previously. This requires an emotional detachment from the African nationalist movement in order to enable a dispassionate intellectual treatment of governance and leadership conduct.
Severing the emotive ties may be a mammoth task not only because of their historic nature, but also because of what the fate of the present-day society implies for the meaning of blackness.
African nationalism had both intellectual origin and leadership. It was led by intellectuals who imagined the union differently to the unkind society it was becoming. Their notion of nonracial citizenship for instance, reflected a different world. Theirs was a meeting point between the white and black world. Their moral convictions wouldn’t allow them to acquiesce to a dichotomous conception of humankind: a superior “whiteness”, on the one hand, and an inferior “blackness”, on the other.
And their professional achievements in the various fields, despite all the odds ranged against them, nullified racist prejudice of an inferior, subhuman other.
Not only did the nationalist intellectuals conceptualise society differently, but they also invented the instruments to bring their vision into life. Newspapers and political organisation were among such instruments of societal change.
Through newspapers such as, for example, Imvo Zabantsundu, Izwi Labantu, Ilanga, Tsala ea Batswana and Abantu-Batho – they communicated their ideas and mobilised the rest of society behind their cause. Perhaps even more important was that newspapers cultivated a new citizenry for a future post-apartheid society.
They helped craft a national identity amongst dispersed people, each confined to their own ethnic enclaves. In reading about their common experiences and history, they began to identify with each other transcending their ethnic identities and narrow geographic spaces.
If the newspapers introduced distant ethnic groups to each other, organisational involvement brought them into physical contact. The national footprint of the ANC was especially useful in ensuring that each ethnic group and part of the country formed part of the nationalist movement.
Such contacts and regular interactions sapped ethnic prejudices and enabled trans-ethnic ties to form. Individuals began to imagine themselves not only in ethnic terms and as subjects, but also as Africans and citizens of a nation-state.
The point therefore, is that the democratic breakthrough was also a triumph of the intellect.
This is not to downplay the importance of mass mobilisation. Victory would not have been possible without the involvement of the masses of the downtrodden. But, that involvement was organised around, and steered by, a particular set of ideas.
It is through ideas that society changes and progresses.
At another level however, the democratic moment has also represented a challenge. Admittedly it has provided the space and resources to realise the objective of a new, caring society. But this did not imply the end of a role for the intellectual. Intellectual prowess remained critical in order to translate the vision into “a better life for all”.
Quite a number of intellectuals were consequently drawn into the state apparatus to apply their intellect and energy to transforming society.
Location within the state however, did not allow for an unhindered expression of intellectual activity. This is because political power operates on a different logic. It is pre-occupied with sustaining itself. This makes it averse to self-criticism, but predisposes it towards self-legitimation. It seeks validation over critique. Intellectual engagement, therefore, is constrained.
Added to the structural constraints is the pseudo moral superiority to which liberation movements are susceptible.
Because they led a just cause and made personal sacrifices, the nationalist-intellectuals that became government leaders then delude themselves into believing they are beyond rebuke.
Besides the delusions of grandeur, intolerance for criticism also seeks to conceal ignominy. From being liberation fighters some turn into plunderers of public resources. Self-indulgence takes priority over public service. Honest critique then becomes a nuisance.
Under such circumstances, intellectuals both within the state and society in general, become silent, if not marginalised.
In other instances, silence has to do with subsistence. People just don’t want to lose their jobs or consultancy contracts. One is not only an intellectual, but also a spouse and/or parent with bills and schools fees to pay. Kids don’t eat ideas.
Ultimately though, power is not infallible however much it thinks of itself. Intellectual scrutiny remains critical. The implementation of policies requires intellectual interrogation and new policies are needed. All of this needs an intellectually inclined bureaucrat, free to express her views and open to engagement with the intellectual community outside the state apparatus.
This is not to suggest that the political elite has been entirely hostile to the intelligentsia. They do engage in discussions with intellectuals now and then. Before the recent elections for instance, Luthuli House organised a few round-table discussions. Another followed after the elections. This reflects appreciation of the role of intellectuals in society.
The problem though, is that the party-in-government seeks to determine the terms of engagement. It’s not keen on an open-ended reflection that includes the concerns of the intellectuals.
The pre-election discussions for instance, were geared towards winning the intellectuals over in the hope of gaining sympathetic public commentary for electoral purposes.
It was soon realised however, that there are much more pressing matters in our country than the ANC’s election manifesto. A commitment was then made to engage regularly and beyond electoral cycles. That commitment hasn’t been followed up, however. I suspect the interactions will be revived just before the 2016 local elections.
Creating a vibrant intellectual culture is not a responsibility that lies only with the political elite. Intellectuals also have to avail themselves and assume a public role. Seclusion in universities is not sufficient.
University plays an important role in cultivating an intellectual mind. But that intellect together with the research it generates must also be applied on public issues. Doing this not only improves the quality of public policies but also creates a deliberative culture.
Democracy flourishes where there’s a culture of critical and vigorous debate.
And for the progressive and nationalist intellectuals critical engagement is not betrayal. Politicians can be conceited in thinking the fate of the republic rests solely on their shoulders. Nothing could be further from the truth. The success of our society is a collective objective.
Mismanagement is not only an indictment on the ruling elite, but is also misconstrued to perpetuate racial stereotypes. Failures are taken as validation of racial inferiority. “Blacks can’t rule”, is the refrain in some quarters.
A shared ambition however, doesn’t imply racial solidarity. The role of the intellectual is to insist on the ethical exercise of power.
Dr Mcebisi Ndletyana is head of the political economy faculty at Mistra
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos