As South Africa enters this critical week in its infant democracy, the stakes couldn't be higher.
At stake is the country's presidency, and a huge test of cohesion for the ruling ANC. To win, each side has pushed a particular narrative, one that favours the desired outcome.
On the ascendancy is the opposition and those within the ANC who are calling for Zuma to go. They have labelled the impending vote as a matter of "conscience." However, what is abundantly clear is that these proponents of such a view have a very narrow definition of what "voting with one's conscience" actually means. In fact, their view can be defined as a "closed view," for in their narrative, voting against Zuma IS the only conscientious vote.
This is a lie, and must be pointed out as such.
To elaborate this point, we need to examine closely the definition of "conscience." A google search quickly settles the matter in that every definition I scanned points to one thing: a conscience being an individual's sense of right and wrong. Consequently, matters of the "conscience" are subjective rather than objective. Summarily, there is no absolute truth when it comes to matters of the conscience.
It then follows that both a vote FOR or AGAINST Zuma can be equally "conscientious." The difference in outcomes is determined by the individual, and the perspective from which they are looking at the matter.
Those who are FOR voting Zuma out of office point to state capture and the allegations of corruption and criminality hanging over the President's head. These are thoroughly valid issues that require "conscientious" consideration.
On the other hand, there is the matter of socioeconomic progress in South Africa. In my view, South Africa's problems have been reduced to Gupta-capture, and Zuma's alleged criminality.
This is a lie.
These problems go further than allegations of state capture. Furthermore, the problems have not been ten years in the making. What we see today in South Africa has been centuries in the making, and the challenges are ultimately defined by apartheid and how it has shaped modern society. Consequently, FOR SOME, state capture and corruption are NOT as relevant as the skewed economic outcomes, which are seen as defined by race and the continuing legacy of apartheid. That is not to say they think allegations of state capture and corruption are irrelevant. Rather, on the balance of things, they think that the legacy of apartheid has more to do with what is going on than the public is being made to believe.
In light of this, some view Zuma's increased calls for black economic empowerment and talk of "white monopoly capital" as sloganeering and political opportunism, lacking in real intent or sincerity. On the other hand, some view this as a necessary clarion call to review business and economic practices to reverse centuries of skewed social progress in South Africa.
Which of the two viewpoints is more conscientious?
I say none is "holier" than the other.
Both sides are basing their viewpoint on some definitive conclusions and assumptions. The pro-Zuma camp assumes (fairly or unfairly) that those against Zuma are agents of so called "white monopoly capital," who are against radical socioeconomic transformation. The anti-Zuma camp (fairly or unfairly) puts forward that a vote to keep Zuma in power is a vote for corruption and the absolute abuse of state resources for personal benefit.
Which viewpoint is more "conscientious"?
Conclusively, the motion of no confidence is less about "conscience" and more about "interests." Those peddling the "conscience" factor are doing so for political capital, so that if their favoured outcome does not materialise, they can point to the victorious camp as "immoral."
This is absolute nonsense, and cheap political propaganda.
Politics does not have to be always rooted in lies. The general public is vulnerable to repeated falsehoods presented as definitive truths. The point of this article is to point out the conscious lie of making this motion of no confidence one of "conscience" where "conscientiousness" is narrowly subscribed to a particular outcome.
South Africa needs an honest discussion about its future. Such a discussion will yield no long term sustainable results without an honest appraisal of socioeconomic outcomes. State-capture and corruption form part of the narrative, in as much as business and economic attitudes are central to the subject. Hiding behind politicised phrases may result in immediate political gains. However, long term, South Africa will suffer the consequences of a simplistic and false approach to resolving matters of generational importance.