The ‘new’ South Africa and its Multiple Layers of ‘Othering’

The ‘new’ South Africa’s conceptualisation of what constitutes truth, fairness and justice not only has very soft corners but has also become increasingly ambiguous and pliable. This shift is particularly troubling because it undermines the core principles guiding a democratic society, that we are always reminded of the ‘new’ South Africa is all about.

At the heart of these concerning shenanigans is the media, which has chosen to relocate from the Fourth Estate to immerse itself in the political wars that are ongoing in this country. The media plays a role in this storytelling of untruths and fanning lies with a straight face, pretending that all is going well. This implies that the media has decided to embed itself in this storytelling of untruths.

It is not that it has ever been neutral or impartial, but it is now brazened in its stances and complicit in the perpetration of injustices. Instead of playing its role as a crucial watchdog with the power to hold authority and others to account, it misinforms the public and spreads inaccurate and biased information. This is quite unfortunate because the consumers of its propaganda are not astute enough to understand what is happening around them.

This article argues that justice and fairness were compromised when the societal focus transitioned from explicit racist practices to more insidious forms of discrimination. Injustices entrench systems of privilege and create a society without equal access to opportunities and resources for everyone. Also, fairness and equality in the ‘new’ South Africa are undermined by the enduring influence of historical beliefs in white superiority, the advantages associated with proximity to whiteness, and how these biases intersect with contemporary ideas of progress and modernity.

• Creation of a Double System of ‘Othering’ in the ‘new’ South Africa

In post-apartheid South Africa, the concept of proximity to whiteness and modernity among the black petit-bourgeoisie presents a multifaceted challenge to notions of fairness, justice and social cohesion. The black petit-bourgeoisie, who have attained some economic success and adopted Western norms of modernity, distance themselves from the broader black community. They align with groups or ideologies that prioritise maintaining existing power structures rather than addressing ongoing injustices affecting marginalised groups.

Some within the black middle class identify more with dominant cultural norms and values, as well as alienate themselves from the struggles of less assimilated or poorer black South Africans. This creates a double system of ‘othering’, where certain segments of black people are further ostracised within their own community and in broad white spaces based on economic status or degree of assimilation.

Consequently, the black middle class becomes desensitised to the suffering and injustices faced by many who continue to await the Uhuru train. This desensitisation not only impedes efforts toward broader social justice but also undermines efforts to achieve genuine social cohesion and inclusive development. The black middle class has also become a potent ally of the ‘Friends of the Natives’, who use money and their institutions like the media to create new forms of oppression embedded in politically refined language and flexible truths.

Exclusion is one concerning trait of the 'new' South Africa, as it exhibits indistinguishable conduct from apartheid by continuing to ‘other’ millions while centering on the few. This behaviour suggests that few people have a birthright to be privileged while the majority are deemed less deserving. The persistent issues of poverty, inequality and unemployment are no coincidence. They are often abstracted or tolerated because these problems are seen as inherent to the natural state of the ‘others’ — those who are marginalised and excluded from the benefits enjoyed by the privileged few.

The mechanism of exclusion has evolved over time through words and their meanings. While the explicit racism of the apartheid era has diminished, sophisticated use of language now sustains the divide. This new strategy uses seemingly neutral or coded language to perpetuate the same discriminatory practices without the overt racism of the past. Terms like ‘disadvantaged communities’ or ‘underprivileged groups’ may seem benign, but they often mask the systemic inequalities that continue to favour a small, elite group.

This linguistic shift allows the perpetuation of inequality to go unchallenged, as it cloaks the reality of discrimination in acceptable and non-confrontational terms. Moreover, this sophisticated use of language creates a veneer of progress and inclusivity while the underlying structures of power and privilege remain unchanged. This disconnect between language and reality can make it difficult for marginalised people to voice their concerns and seek genuine change.

• The Flexible Notion of Justice

Justice and fairness should be more neutral and highly protected values, thriving to ensure they are consistently upheld. One reason for this necessity is that the notion of justice in the ‘new’ South Africa is quite malleable and can be manipulated to fit various agendas. It becomes a tool that can be shaped to serve specific interests rather than a steadfast principle guiding equitable treatment and accountability.

This flexibility undermines the foundational ideals of justice, which should be impartial and objective, free from external influences that seek to distort its application.

Moreover, this situation is exacerbated by the perception that the ‘best in the world’ constitution and the ‘new’ South African society, which claims a moral high ground and upholds democratic principles, are beyond reproach. The belief among the most powerful that society has achieved a superior ethical and democratic state currently stifles critical discussions and ferments dissent.

Today, people hesitate to question or challenge injustices and unfair practices, fearing backlash or marginalisation in a society that prides itself on its moral and democratic achievements. This fear of reprisal creates an environment where genuine issues of injustice and unfairness are ignored or suppressed, leading to a cycle of unaddressed grievances and growing discontent.

One striking example of this dynamic is the treatment of former president Jacob Zuma, who is often harassed and violated, primarily by the media and the judiciary. The principles of justice and fairness appear to be disregarded when dealing with those who are disliked or hated. This selective application of justice raises serious questions about the ‘new’ South Africa’s commitment to upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice for all.

The constitution does not have qualifiers for the ‘right to life’ and justice; these rights are extended to everyone, including hard-core criminals and rapists. Furthermore, it is renowned for its progressive stance: it is built on principles that are meant to ensure fairness and justice for all its citizens. However, the selective and flexible application of justice suggests a deviation from these principles, underscoring the need for a recommitment to upholding justice as an impartial and unyielding value.

• Miscarriage of Democracy

With thirty years since the formal end of apartheid, the perpetually ‘new’ South Africa never ceases to disappoint in how its double reflection on its broken mirror continues to reveal deep-seated societal fractures and attitudes. The May 29 elections unearthed the dark side of the ‘new’ South Africa, demonstrating how the miscarriage of democracy and double-speak can be tolerated solely to achieve narrow ends: re-entrenching whiteness and rewarding those in proximity to white privilege.

In his article in News24, businessman Sipho Pityana celebrated “how Ramaphosa turned [an] electoral loss into a strategic victory”. Blindness to injustice and fairness breeds insensitivities and fails many people’s judgments and interpretations of situations that may be unfair or unjust. What Pityana does seem to appreciate is that democracy embeds unfairness and injustice. The post-May 29 events have centred old power (VF Plus and DA) and ‘othered’ the rest, an outcome faceless markets wanted at all costs, but nobody is yet to clarify their desperation.

One criticism levelled against the modern state-centric system concerned the exclusion of millions of ‘Zulus’ during apartheid from participation in the United Nations, while the smallest states, like Liechtenstein and Andorra, were full members. This disparity raised questions about the UN’s ability to represent the global population fairly in the same way ‘national unity’ excludes some political parties, unsurprisingly black, since they are regarded as ‘doomsday’.

At the provincial level, things became extremely concerning as double standards and the use of language were elevated to another level.

In KZN, the ANC and DA have united to exclude the MKP, which garnered 45% of the vote, resulting in a miscarriage of democracy and justice. The ‘voice of the people’ was disregarded as these two parties, with the support of the IFP and smaller NFP, divided the spoils. Helen Zille later justified this action as necessary to prevent the province from being thrown to the dogs”, ostensibly referring to the MKP and EFF, the very same black parties dismissed as 'doomsday' at the national level.

Zille’s vexed use of language sparked a petition claiming her remarks perpetuated racial discrimination. Critics calling for accountability condemned her for revealing deep-seated racial prejudices in the country’s political scene. Conversely, her defenders argued that she used a figure of speech without malicious intent, stressing varying interpretations of her statement. They inferred: “In English, this is called an idiom ‘going to the dogs’. Google it, you will see the meaning of this expression is ‘becoming very much less successful than it was in the past. Deteriorating and making worse or ruined’.”

Interestingly, Zille’s comments came after the ANC in Gauteng supposedly defied Luthuli House and the DA to form a government without the DA, the ANC’s GNU partner at the national level.

The DA supporters and the media have correctly reminded Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi that the ANC did not win the province. However, they omit to add that neither the DA nor the ANC secured victories at the national level or in KZN. At worst, a majority party was not even given the opportunity to form a government as a courtesy due to the absence of rules governing coalitions. This abrogation of the rules of democracy is not even spoken about, as the language suggests the black voter cannot make rational choices but needs to be rescued from himself instead.

It remains unclear why both parties saw themselves as rightful heirs to the remains in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Pietermaritzburg. Ferial Haffajee recently wrote that “nationally and in KZN, the ANC has formed a government of the sensible centre in genuine attempts at power-sharing.” A closer examination of their stance portrays the DA and, to some extent, the ANC as the centre or ‘saviours’ while portraying others as ‘other’.

Lesufi’s purported defiance has attracted screams and accusations, with language getting even more direct. One supporter applauded the DA for taking decisive action to join the national and KZN governments and for stepping away from Gauteng. There is a view that the ANC in Gauteng seems to have deliberately misread the voters’ wishes since they have “a big-brother mentality”. This is a double standard since this mentality was not pinpointed in KZN or elsewhere.

Lesufi and the ANC are violently attacked for opting against power-sharing with the superior DA, asserting control over the lion’s share of government MEC posts. This move is questioned for not reflecting the province’s voting demographics and perpetuating a culture of patronage and corruption. Complaints do not concern how democracy continues to marginalise the black majority. Instead, those fighting Lesufi seek to centre the DA and ‘other’ people in Mamelodi, Soweto and Slovo Park.

The media is either in deep sleep or busy playing a fast bowler in a political cricket match that is increasingly about creating multiple layers of ‘othering’ or simply mental Bantustans. By choosing sides and promoting particular positions, media outlets contribute to the distortion of truth and the erosion of justice. This uncanny behaviour challenges the integrity of public discourse and the functioning of democracy.

Siya yi banga le economy!