A couple of days ago I attended a lecture given by Colin Eglin. It was the annual commemoration of the life and career of Barry Streek, a journalist of note who died in 2006. Colin Eglin used the occasion to identify the values and ideas Streek supported during his career. He ended with some sobering thoughts about the present situation in South Africa.

However, as many of our international readers, and even some young South Africans, would not know who Colin Eglin is, something about him. Colin, who is now 86 years of age and served with the South African forces in Italy in the Second World War, has been part of the liberal white opposition for all of his political career. He was initially a member of the United Party, the only serious party opposing the National Party when it came to power in 1948. He was chairman of the Cape Peninsula Senior Council, at a time when I was chairman of the Cape Peninsula Youth Council. So we have come a long way together – or as he puts it in his memoirs “we have rubbed shoulders in the opposition over the years”. Eglin was the leading member, with Helen Suzman, of the breakaway Progressive Party which he subsequently led. And Eglin, as one of the leaders of the Democratic Party was that party’s representative in the Constitutional talks setting up the new South Africa.

What characterises Colin Eglin’s career – and this is something so lamentably missing from politics in South Africa today – is a sense of vocation. He wasn’t in politics for the money. He was there to serve and to promote certain goals which he and his party held to be dear – values essential to all South Africa’s people, regardless of colour or race or creed. And a second aspect that I greatly respect him for is that, while he never held government office by virtue of his opposition status, he developed over his career international relationships which were quite extraordinary. He travelled extensively and was a member of, and an honoured member, of numerous international democratic associations. In this regard he played a major role promoting South Africa’s foreign relations – something which is often overlooked.

He ended his speech the other night by speculating how Barry Streek would have interpreted events and developments in South Africa today. Given Eglin’s knowledge of politics, his insight, his values and the consistency of his values, what he had to say needs to be heeded – particularly as he spoke of South Africa being “at a tipping point”.

He said there were three issues which make for an uncertain future. The first is the government’s assault on the press. In recent months senior members of the government have been attacking the press with increasing intensity as a prelude to the introduction of the Protection of State Information Bill, which both South African and international media observers view as a direct assault on the freedom of the press as set out in the Constitution.

Secondly, he expressed serious concern at the socio-economic situation that has developed – and especially the situation of the poor, the underprivileged and the deprived. Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), he pointed out was designed to remedy the racial imbalances in the economy in ownership, management and labour. However, it did not give priority to reducing poverty or creating more jobs. Rather, in his view BEE rearranged on a racial basis the relative advantages or disadvantages of the “haves”, and by this he meant the people who had jobs. The “have nots” were left out.

And the third issue which he mentioned is the uncertainty introduced by the “unravelling” of the governing ANC/tripartite alliance. The ANC, he said, is at war with itself, and the fault lines are there for all to see.

The competition between those who want to serve and those who are scrambling to enjoy the grandeur and perks of office.
The clash between factions in their lust for power.
The debilitating effect of corruption, patronage and greed.
The fundamental difference between those who want to uphold the values and defend the institutions of the Constitution, and those who are still locked into the opposing concept of a national democratic revolution; and
The inability to project a vision for the future that unites our nation in pursuit of a common purpose.
 

Colin Eglin is not alone in expressing these concerns. Gerald Shaw, veteran journalist and columnist with The Cape Times, published an article yesterday under the heading “ANC leadership is putting our constitutional democracy in mortal danger”. Shaw was referring to – what he correctly described - as “two fundamental pillars of South Africa’s stumbling democracy - freedom of expression and judicial independence” - which he said are under renewed assault by the ANC government.

South Africa and its people have reason to be very proud of what was achieved in 1994. We have reason to be proud of the new Constitution and proud of the political culture which was developing at that time under Nelson Mandela. Seventeen years later that culture has lost a lot of its vitality. In fact, it is rather ragged, although I believe strong enough to endure the present passage of our politics.

However, when people like Colin Eglin and Gerald Shaw – and there are others - express these sort of concerns, you can’t blame ordinary South Africans for being confused and worried about their future. And I believe this applies to South Africans of all hues and cultures. South Africa is a very unsettled society. Newspaper headlines one day will reflect a certain confidence; the next day it will be doom and gloom. Analysts will argue it’s a question of leadership – and no doubt leadership is a factor. Unfortunately, the political situation and specifically the situation within the ANC alliance has moved beyond the control of present leadership. The factionalism, the in-fighting, all the secret machinations have reduced President Zuma’s ability to influence things – because at the centre of our politics is presidential succession. Therefore, until that is settled in 2012, we can only expect political babble, confusion, and even chaos at government level.