After reading a recent piece by Sinawo Thambo, a fellow comrade, fighter and friend, I hesitated to respond lest I be jeered to be a “Liberal” and or apologist of racism, by young fighters within the fastest growing student movement in the Southern Hemisphere. However, I quickly remembered that the EFF Students’ Command carries the difficult burden of propelling the battle of ideas in South Africa today. On the one side you have all the youth structures of the African National Congress (ANC) wallowing in factional power struggles. On the other side, you have an incoherent and confused DASO, which resembles its mother body the Democratic Alliance (DA), which, in the words former DA head of policy, Gwen Ngwenya, lacks an “appetite for policy”. As nature does not allow for a vacuum, young Fighters have chosen to close this gap.

Writing, though, can never be writing for its own sake. In the words of Karl Marx, “Theory without practice is sterile.” That is to say that theory must be seen as a means to an end. The end being the realisation of our truest aspirations, and liberation. It is Marx again who wrote that, “Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”

The purpose of this piece is not so much to disagree, wholly, with what Thambo wrote. As you will see later, we have many points of convergence. It is rather interested in further interrogating the central claim he makes about the doctrine or ideology; Liberalism. One may very well ask the question – what is a member of the EFFSC doing interrogation claims about Liberalism? Well, I am of the view that integral to our struggle is the battle of ideas. I am also a strong believer in the principle of “Interpretive Charity”. What this principle basically means, is that when engaged in a debate with someone, you observe their argument, to the degree that is possible, and analyse their strongest version, even if they may not have raised it. Of course the easy and intellectually cheap thing to do is to attack your opponent’s argument for the sake of winning the debate. However, if you prioritise the quest for truth over winning an argument, you will go as far as restructuring your opponent’s argument, optimise it, such that it is the most difficult for you to refute. That is how ideas grow. That is how societies develop.

It is perhaps the right time to declaim that, I for one am not a liberal. Nor do I believe that liberalism is capacitated to address the problem of South Africa, Africa and the world. Therefore, I agree with Thambo when he asserts that, “liberalism as a school of thought… cannot serve a constructive purpose to the altering of structural relations in South Africa.” I also agree that the DA not only has an identity crisis, at a level of policy and character, but equally, that the DA “would never be an ideal alternative in South African society.” Their insistence that the growth and developmental plans of South Africa be colour blind, is a spit in the face of the Blacks in general and Africans in particular, who continue to suffer from the legacy of Apartheid-Colonialism. At the centre of this denialism is the project to protect all the material benefits and privileges gained through raiding Africa, and subjugating its people.

The bone I wish to pick, is the claim which is quite central to Thambo’s piece. As suggested by the title, I want to invite Thambo to a deeper interrogation of Liberalism. Thambo writes boldly that, “Liberalism as a school of thought is inherently racist.” My simple response to this is – Is it really?

I was relieved to discover that he too traces Liberalism to the earliest epochs of enlightenment in Europe. Very influential to that epoch was German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kant had a lot to write about liberalism. In fact his political philosophy is central to some of the most fundamental principles of Liberalism. Why I bring Kant to this discussion, will become clear as the piece progresses. Thambo writes; “Locke determines that property ownership can only be determined at two levels, either through purchase or settlement, and within these frameworks, settlement on vacant land or land deemed unproductive was legitimate, and once such lands were settled upon and enclosed, they were the property of those who had enclosed them and shown ability to be productive on them.”

Thambo must have read this from Locke’s Labour Theory of Property or Ownership. I will attempt to simplify this to the degree that is possible, without cheating it of its quality. Locke argued that ownership came about as a result of man “mixing his labour” with the natural world. In other words If there is a plot of vacant land, never owned before, by anyone, man through working that land came to appropriate or own it. Say for example you find land, you cultivate it, and you sow, and enclose it. By doing that you are mixing your labour with it. This idea is fundamental to property rights, and thus fundamental to Liberalism.

However, Locke and many other European thinkers did not stop there. They argued that, it was necessary that this exercise be done by a rational being. In fact, he argued that, only a rational being could transform the natural environment to this degree. Therefore, Reason, an idea which is also very central to European enlightenment was the cornerstone of legitimate labour. This is where Thambo draws inspiration for his claim. He argues that innate in Liberalist thought, the native is viewed “outside the bounds of rationality that make a human being, and that allow a being to qualify for the rights liberalism stands for.” In a word, outside of Reason. Thambo argues that, to Liberal thought, the native cannot reason, therefore cannot work the land productively – cannot claim ownership.

This brings us back to Kant. Writing on Human Dignity, Kant makes a distinction between human beings and animals. He together with Marx, who also expands on this idea, argue that animals have an instinctive relationship with the natural environment. He argued that humans have an “intrinsic worth”, whilst animals have worth in as far as they can be of use to human beings. He argued that humans have self-conscious desires and goals. Furthermore, because humans are free agents with the ability to guide their thoughts, they possess Reason. To drive this point, Marx, in Capital writes;

“A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will.”

In other words the relationship that a rational being has with the environment, is not limited to survival, and sustenance. Man must do more than just find food and shelter, as the bird in a nest would. To transcend his animalistic characteristics he must be innovative, develop the land, trade, and make laws to govern his interactions with the land and other rational beings. So in the example I made earlier about the vacant plot of land, after cultivating, sowing, and enclosing, the rational man then develops laws to govern his affairs, trades, and through innovation and “imagination” develops his land.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that Africans were not engaged in this practise, long before the arrival of the Colonialist. In fact, historians have come out to show us that ancient African empires went on voyages to go and trade with societies in the West. The organisation of livestock, the preservation of food, building of complex pyramids, communal social contracts, indigenous medicines, these don’t even scratch the surface of what Africans were able to achieve through their interaction with the natural environment. Liberalism, is left with no choice but to concede to the objective truth that the native does in fact exist within “the bounds of rationality that make a human being, and that allow a being to qualify for the rights liberalism stands for.”

This is Liberalism the ideology. It supersedes Locke and Kant’s feelings. It turns on them and looks down on their inclinations. Liberalism is racist insofar as Marxism and Leninism is racist. If this exposition holds, which I am sure will be met with strong opposition, then it may be useful to present a stronger case against Liberalism – the idea and not necessarily its couriers.  

The Democratic Alliance has in 2019 experienced one of its most difficult years as the second biggest opposition party in South Africa. On the back of a significant decline in the 2019 National General Elections, the party has been plagued by division and leadership crisis. In the space of a week former party leader, Helen Zille, was elected Federal Council Chair, a return which was followed by the abrupt exodus of key senior officials, namely Mmusi Maimane and Johannesburg Mayor Herman Mashaba. It remains an organization plagued by racism, policy uncertainty and a lack of an authentic identity, and arguably if one were to make a comprehensive analysis of the DA as things stand it can be concluded to have reached its ceiling.

That being said, the DA maintains itself as a liberal alternative in South African politics, and whether we agree with this or not, it is important to make a diagnosis of the party, and perhaps an ideological argument to locate the DA at the level of identity and theory. Something they have struggled to do themselves.

This piece will therefore locate the Democratic Alliance, whether it be true or not within the liberal tradition it claims to represent, but more importantly make the case that liberalism as a school of thought is inherently racist and cannot serve a constructive purpose to the altering of structural relations in South Africa. Perhaps more pointedly, this piece will challenge the notion that the supposed liberal divisions within the DA are of any ideological or material value to the majority of South Africans, this is to say that, whichever strands of liberalism members of the DA claim to belong to, they are fundamentally linked to the racist, capitalist and imperialist roots of the liberal tradition and its conceptual limitations.

This is the same way in which Maoism, Leninism, socialist theory can never be separated from Marxism, in the same way that afro-pessimism, black consciousness, Ubuntu, Negritude can never be separated from the black radical tradition. The governing logic of liberalism as a tradition is a logic of capitalism, racism, and the mediating of socio-economic contradictions at the expense of the oppressed. It is one that is bound for failure in a humanist project of South Africa, and this paper will allude to how ideologically and theoretically the DA can never be an alternative to alleviate the problems of the majority of this country.

Before we delve into unpacking the central argument of the piece, it must be noted that the DA gives very little at the level of policy to engage or unpack. It is for this reason that I must firstly admit that I agree with Gwen Ngwenya on the lack of appetite for policy within the DA, and it is for this reason that I must concede that I will be arguing against the DA claiming it is liberal based on what prominent figures within it have ventilated into the public arena rather than any grounded ideological documents or manifestos.

Let us begin by unpacking what liberalism is, what its roots are and then dive into how it is conceptually at odds with what is necessary to undo the very structural problems in South Africa. Liberalism, is an ideology whose origins can be traced to the earliest epochs of enlightenment in modern Europe. It is a tradition whose basic principles are the promotion of autonomy, the rule of law, free press, individual liberty, and as Percy Mabogo More captures it in his book Biko: On Philosophy, Identity and Liberation, it is an ideology that “… gives priority to… human rationality, and the ability of such rational beings to order their own lives without any unnecessary interference from anyone or the state…”

As any other ideology that seeks to influence how a society is structured and operates it has an economic component, and undoubtedly the economic model of liberalism is capitalism and its variations. This is not a perspective that is thumb sucked, but rather is again rooted in how liberalism was conceptualized by its earliest theorists and how it conceptualizes the relationship of beings with their broader society. This is in the context of individuality and free enterprise.

The analysis of liberalism as rooted in capitalist economic ideology, and racial superiority is justified when one considers the interaction of supposed liberals and liberalism with the colonies of Africa and South America. It is an early interaction that proponents of this ideology have with these indigenous nations that is characterized by wealth extraction, and presumed validity of the cultural, political and social ideals of Western Civilization that make it unable to address the problems we face today. It is what makes liberalism inadequate to address the modern problems of deliberately under-developed nations simply because it created the problems these nations face, and is conceptually unable to undo what it was an accomplice in creating.

The father of liberalism, John Locke precedes his ancestor Helen Zille by rationalizing colonialism. In essence Locke, who sets the table for the basic tenants of liberalism does not seem to in his conception view indigenous people in the colonies as worthy of the rights prescribed by liberalism, and this is done through a sophisticated manner of locating natives in the colonies outside the bounds of rationality that make a human being, and that allow a being to qualify for the rights liberalism stands for. For Locke, colonialism was an invite to civility of natives in the colonies, and he thus justifies the land theft that occurs in the Americas, and imposition of British cultures on such these nations as necessary in their step towards development.

Conquest is rationalized because the conquered are deemed irrational beings by the founders of classical liberal theory. For Locke, drawing from the logic of Britain, colonialism at a conceptual level was the fulfilling of religious doctrine over land and the earth itself. Locke creates a framework for what constitutes ownership and sovereignty under what is themed the laws of nature. In basic terms Locke argues that biblically all land on earth is the natural right of man, and that man shall work it and make said lands productive.

From this, Locke determines that property ownership can only be determined at two levels, either through purchase or settlement, and within these frameworks, settlement on vacant land or land deemed unproductive was legitimate, and once such lands were settled upon and enclosed, they were the property of those who had enclosed them and shown ability to be productive on them. He proceeds to then set the terms of what constitutes productivity, which is ability to produce agriculturally and to translate this production to participation in global commerce. This liberal therefore justified conquest on the grounds of the ability to participate in colonial capitalist markets. The rights of autonomy, of liberty, of ownership of land by natives was dismissed simply because it did not meet the metrics of a western civilization that had capitalist interests in mind.

African philosopher Mogobe Ramose then provides us with another logic of colonialism, which coincides with the fact of how liberals enter native society in Africa and the Americas on the premise that they are not engaging rational beings, and therefore the rights of liberalism do not apply when entering colonial society. He conceptualises colonialism as the expression of racism and a superiority-complex he deems the divine right to conquest. Unlike the economic rationale provided by Locke, Ramose reveals colonialism to us as the expression of existential arrogance.

He alludes to theological and philosophical grounds for conquest being established in thirteenth century Western Europe, and thus the logic for this divine right to conquest. He writes in his paper In Memoriam: Sovereignty and the ‘New’ South Africa that “In seeking conquest of the earth, the Western colonising nations of Europe and the derivative settler-colonised states produced by their colonial expansion have been sustained by a central idea: the West’s religion, civilisation: and knowledge are superior to the religions, civilisations and knowledge of non-Western people’s. This superiority… is the redemptive source of the West’s presumed mandate to impose its vision of truth on non-Western people.”

The above is a basic unpacking of what ideologically grounds the “classical liberals” that have over the past week usurped power in the DA and, led by Helen Zille. It is a grouping of individuals, true to their tradition of justified conquest are against the expropriation of land without compensation, are against the nationalisation of mines and banks, are against free education and have an annoying defence of colonialism due to a racist rationale of the necessity of colonialism to invite pre-colonial nations towards western civility. It is a brief analysis of what constitutes the interaction of liberal theory with colonised nations.

Now what do we make of the variants within this liberal tradition?

In the case of the DA much has been made about the recent exit of Mmusi Maimane and of the defeat of a supposedly liberal social democrat faction within the DA.

Liberal social democrats are in essence a branch of liberalism that agrees to the basic principle we have gone through, but has an acceptance of the need for state intervention on the socio-economic needs of a populous such as healthcare, education and poverty. These are individuals who are more acutely aware of the historical implications of political phenomena, and urge for a mixed approach in alleviating social and economic contradictions.

The problem however is that it is still rooted in core principles of liberalism, such as the market principles that come with capitalism. It is not cognisant of neo-colonialism and its enduring effects and seeks to mediate social tensions rather than adopt a decisive stand that will be biased towards change in a particular direction within society.

Therefore, liberalism as it has been conceptualised is inadequate in addressing the contradictions of a post-colonial society, due to its complicity, and in its variants its lack of decisive understanding of the enduring legacy of colonialism and how capitalism, even in its welfare form has failed modern society.

As an ideology, it has given birth to a condescending white class that is riddled with guilt, which maintains paternalistic relations with native African society, placing itself as the custodian of how change ought to be forged, infantilizing Africans, and mitigating robust interaction between the ruling elite, the system and the oppressed.

The Democratic Alliance, even if it were to actually be true to the liberal tradition would never be an ideal alternative in South African society. It is perfectly suited to aid and abet the current neo-liberal trajectory of South Africa under the ANC. Those who are black within it must do a serious introspection into how they grasp theory, as they will try and locate themselves as progressives within an ideology that is fundamentally anti their very being.