Piccolo Teatro

There have been a few questions and unfortunate assumptions about what I meant with the term White Inc. This is a term that has featured a lot in my thoughts as I tried to grasp the extent of the resistance by a section of our society to the continuation of the fight against prejudice, privilege and total emancipation of the black people. This is a term that will feature a lot in my writing.

1994 was a victory for South Africa and all it’s people but it only brought about a part of what black people had been fighting for years. At last, they could, like their white counterparts, vote for the government they want. But the playing field was nowhere level. White people were and still are insulated in centuries’ of privilege. They still owned the economy, the media and almost all the productive land. By virtue of their ownership of the economy and land they still held vast influence with the new government. Their kids still went to the best schools, they still got the bulk of government services, lived in opulent relatively secure neighborhoods. Patronage was dispensed to a few strategically positioned blacks who in turn pleaded their case at the main table.

The goal now became the protection of the status quo. White people simply could not lose privilege! With huge resources at their disposal, the giant resistance movement came to life when black people started putting government under pressure and in turn government put them under pressure. The White Inc was born. It comprised not only of ordinary white people who wanted to protect their privileged lives but also huge sections of the media, compromised BEE scheme recipients, so called independent commentators, business, lobby groups like Afriforum, some opposition parties, academics, some within the ruling party and even foolish black people who think victory for White Inc would secure their jobs. So the term White Inc is not a racially descriptive one but rather of a heterogenious group not necessarily working together but all seeking to protect white interests.

To achieve their goal, the White Inc employs a lot of different strategies. Some of these are genius and innovative while some are rather crude and plain foolish. Let me mention a few.

We have seen a huge rise in government being taken to court for every decision it takes. Some of the challenges by the way have merit but the objective is seldom about the greater good for the country but rather narrow interests. We hear screams of constitutionality at every turn. The latest is the legal action being reportedly molted by Afriforum against the nomination of Mogoeng J for Chief Justice simply because Zuma decided to announce his nomination publicly. I am not in any way suggesting that government shouldn’t be challenged but should we really be wasting so much money and resources running to the courts literally every week to challenge things that can be dealt with by dialogue? If this is so, then let us see the likes of the DA, Afriforum, etc running to court or laying charges when something that affect only black people occurs. Let’s see them laying charges against the likes of Arthur J Brown, let’s see them laying charges against a taxi driver when his unroadworthy taxi kills innocent passengers, let’s see them running to court against the continous provision of poor quality houses for blacks in the townships, let’s see them at the constitutional court arguing a case for a community being poisoned by waste material that contaminates their air and rivers coming from mines and other businesses. In fact let us hear them laying sound proposals for effective land reform, skills transfer and proper employment equity.

White Inc also uses the media very effectively. It is a fact that most black people I know simply do not take what they read in the newspapers seriously anymore. The South African media seems to want to influence rather than inform. The lack of balance thier in reporting is simply criminal. It seems the SA media feels the general public can not make up their minds and need to be sherpeded towards a certain point of view, usually a point of view that will further the objectives of the White Inc. I always maintain that the assertion that the media is the first defender of public interest is purely fictitious. Profits- this is the first reason why most media houses exist. They are there to make money and will take on stories or angles on stories that will attract the most readers from their chosen market segment. And then it seems the as a secondary objective pursue and protect the interests of those with influence over them.

The White Inc seems to have adopted the same strategy that apartheid negotiators employed at Codesa, when it comes to issues of transformation. The idea is to throw as many obstacles as possible at the enemy, fight each single point to death before giving in. Such obstacles are the court cases as mentioned, complicated and ineffective BEE schemes that enrich a few but does not transfer true ownership and skill, ridicule and vilify any person that calls for the required change, lobby internationally, instill fear within the minorities and use the media to belittle the needs of the black people. This kind of resistance gets indirect support from the ANC government in that it is riddled with corruption of it’s own, many personalities within the party and government have become part of the White Inc by being recipient of these meaningless BEE schemes and becoming instant millionaires. No clear and effective policy on land reform, education turnaround strategy or economic reform by government also plays into the hands of the White Inc.

This might seem to be working for the White Inc in the short term but it is simple not sustainable. It serves to harden the hearts of ordinary black people against white people. It puts white people in a position where they feel they are somewhat protected and therefore can continue with their life of privilege while denying that on top of their individual hard work they had the cushion of privilege spring boarding them. This cushion is still there. This simply cause a lot of resentment that will come to a head one day. This will open space for radicalism that will leave Malema looking like Santa Claus. Radicalism is never good, it destroys. Zimbabwe wasn’t born out of Mugabe’s greed alone. That space was created by White people who resisted change and reform for too long. The White Inc are living under the illusion that they lived under during the apartheid that it will never end. It did and it will.

7 responses to “White Inc”

  1. Thulani Avatar
    Thulani

    Interested perspective Ncosana. Keep it up !

  2. Mlu Gwacela Avatar

    Beautiful piece Dube and very informative. Like it a lot.

  3. Mlu Gwacela Avatar

    Sent to New Political Forum. Check it there Ncosana.

  4. MaddGOAT Avatar

    Very well written Mr Dube, quite true, we need open dialogue now before we are thrust into anarchy which is of no good for white inc, the masses and the country in general.

  5. yandiebee Avatar
    yandiebee

    well written indeed

  6. yandiebee Avatar
    yandiebee

    well written indeed, very impressive article

  7. Tony Harding Avatar

    Article by Nomalanga Mkhize (City Press):

    In the debate about whether Mogoeng Mogoeng will make a good chief justice, we are bedevilled by the gap between political intentions and outcome; the gap between past and present, and, fundamentally, the gap between our ideals and reality.

    The heated Mogoeng nomination debate exposed three areas of disjuncture in our society.

    They are that between so-called progressives in the professions; between the values enshrined in the Constitution and those held by society at large; and that most vexing disjuncture of what the Constitution recognises and that which it can remedy.

    Constitutional law Professor Pierre de Vos asked with palpable frustration: “What happened to reasoned debate?” on his Constitutionally Speaking blog.

    He was puzzled by what appeared to be the defence of Mogoeng by progressive black legal professionals, such as Dumisa Ntsebeza (chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission and of Advocates for Transformation) on the basis of black solidarity.

    De Vos further asked: “Have they not read the work of Steve Biko? Have they been so deeply traumatised by apartheid ideology and so bewitched by the ongoing propagation of white superiority by white racists, that they do not believe that, as fellow South Africans, they deserve the very best chief justice, who just happens to be Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke?”

    I was annoyed at the initial vituperation against Mogoeng which revolved around unconvincing arguments about his age, religion, lack of experience and something a bright-spark celeb-analyst allegedly called “intellectual laziness”.

    Even fans of the cartoonist Zapiro could not fathom why his creativity had failed him with the hatchet-job cartoon of Mogoeng as the lapdog on the leash of the beady-eyed Jacob Zuma.

    Credible evidence of Mogoeng’s misogynistic jurisprudence began to emerge days into the noise and I swear I heard a palpable “there you go”.

    His judgments on conjugal rape and beating are outrageous.

    But we need to ask more fundamental questions. Why was Mogoeng allowed to join the Constitutional Court in the first place?

    Shouldn’t all judges embody our constitutional values at all levels of our judiciary?

    Are there more misogynists and anti-gay rights judges lurking in the system, especially in our magistrates courts – first port of call for most?

    Who are the other apartheid-era judges presiding over our courts today?

    How many of them hanged people and what were the circumstances?

    What were the circumstances when all they did was lock people up?

    What about the other judges who hold conservative views on race, the economy, the working class, the unemployed, the disabled and the elderly?

    The answers to these questions are vital to understanding the gaps between us. Critics miss that Ntsebeza, for example, was practising Biko in his viewpoint.

    He did not defend Mogoeng because he is black, but buttressed his argument by referring to the continued marginalisation of black legal professionals.

    He criticised the tone and terms of the Mogoeng debate which he believed were held on the basis of a white gaze, in similar vein to the argument writer Lewis Gordon put forward recently in the Mail & Guardian regarding the debate on affirmative action.

    Mogoeng and Moseneke occupy the same racialised space in the profession, although they hold polar-opposite ideological views.

    Ntsebeza wrote about the ease with which the credibility of a black judge was eviscerated with scant evidence by people who considered him a legal non-entity.

    The intellectual landscape is littered with political analysts who run about in the same professional networks, creating self-referential circles of knowledge about what or whom are significant or acceptable in the political realm.

    It’s an incestuous relationship among columnists, editors, analysts and sections of civil society who feed a tiresome liberal consensus on South African political affairs.

    And they’ve done it again with Mogoeng. We need to re-examine what constitutes the embodiment of a good judge in the new South Africa and how to come to terms with the diversity inherent in our society, which is inevitably reflected in the judiciary.

    I can think of numerous public professionals who go to churches like Mogoeng’s in conservative South African urban enclaves and who share his beliefs – but they do not necessarily oppose the spirit of the Constitution on the basis of their faith.

    They know when to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s in the course of their daily business.

    The Constitutional Court must be able to abide this diversity if it is to be worth more than the paper it is written on.

    The Constitution and the judiciary itself must withstand both the whims of the executive and the beliefs of individual judges.

    I believe the contestation around Mogoeng was worth more than the polarisation itself, for he needs to account to the citizenry.

    What we ultimately want to know is how Mogoeng will uphold the right to equality in the Constitution?

    Can he separate his faith from his duties?

    If he feels that he cannot, then he must, with all due respect, decline the nomination.
    – City Press

Leave a reply to Thulani Cancel reply