Virtue in Hypocrisy

RISING TIDE
A weekly e-mail letter by Jack Bloom, DA Leader in the Gauteng Provincial Legislature
14 April 2008, No: 13/08

There is a charming fairy story of the bitter and vicious king who wished to marry a beautiful young woman. He knew he could not win her over with his cruel-looking face, so he wore a mask that made him look sweet and kindly.

He married her and wore the mask for a full year, but felt that he could not keep up the pretence any longer. He pulled it off and was about to confess his deception, when he saw his face in a mirror. It was the face of a kind man, exactly like the mask that he had worn and which had so changed his behavior that it was a deception no more.

I raise this because one of the arguments against the proposed school pledge and the Bill of Responsibilities that is meant to be recited by children is that it is no use to merely mouth words when teachers behave badly and politicians set a terrible example.

All elected members of parliament and provincial legislatures take an oath or affirmation that they will respect and uphold the constitution. Should we abandon this practice because so many fall short of this ideal?

Many people will say that this is hypocrisy, which is defined as “pretending to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel, a pretence of virtue, piety etc”.

It would be wonderful if everyone was sincere in both word and deed, especially people who are meant to be role-models, but the ideal itself should not be under attack because of the personal weakness of those who claim adherence to it. Do we throw out the Ten Commandments because some ministers violate them?

“Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue” is a very wise saying. It means that the hypocrite acknowledges the value that society places on virtue, otherwise he/she would openly flout it.

If the hypocrite is caught out, his contrition again affirms the virtue, as when New York Governor Elliott Spitzer said in his resignation speech following disclosure of his use of high-class prostitutes: “I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me“.

Bigoted remarks by Jacob Zuma on women and homosexuals probably revealed his real feelings, but he felt the need to retract under public pressure.

Outright denial is worse, as when Reverend Allan Boesak refused to apologize for stealing donor funds meant for the poor and was granted a pardon without admitting guilt.

There would be no hypocrisy if no one ever claimed to aspire to the highest standards of ethical conduct. There would be no shame either, which is an important societal constraint on unethical behavior.

No one accused Hugh Hefner of Playboy magazine of hypocrisy when he moved out of the Playboy mansion so as to bring up his two young sons in a more wholesome environment.

In his opening address this year, Premier Mbhazima Shilowa said, “All of us as leaders, civil servants, legislators and all of our people, have a moral and ethical obligation to uphold the highest possible standards of honesty and integrity”.

The DA will hold him to this statement, which is better than the response by Finance MEC Paul Mashatile who said, “The people who elected us will tell us if we have indeed departed from what they have elected us to do. So we do not want to continue to hear lectures about accountability, about inefficiency.”

Mashatile’s arrogance derives from a ruling party that believes that its overwhelming election victory justifies all that it does as the will of the people, who will continue to support them regardless of any lapses.

Politics is always a tussle between the ideal and what is possible, both ethically and practically. We must continue to aspire to the highest virtues, and be prepared to affirm them even when we fail.

Hopefully the day comes when the mask of hypocrisy is no longer necessary as leaders genuinely believe and practice what they preach.

Will They Still Cheer Mugabe?

Rising Tide

A weekly e-mail letter by Jack Bloom, DA Leader in the Gauteng Provincial Legislature
7 April 2008

When Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe attended the second inauguration of President Thabo Mbeki in April 2004 he got cheers and a standing ovation.
This explains why Mbeki has coddled Mugabe for so long, as there is a strong domestic constituency for him, especially amongst key ANC decision-makers.

It can barely be called a foreign policy issue as it has such a high local impact with the many Zimbabwe immigrants who have fled the economic disaster in their home country.

The Centre for Development and Enterprise (CDE) has recently queried the oft-cited figure of 3 million Zimbabweans in South Africa, contending that it is more likely between 800 000 and 1 million.

This is still very sizeable, a large proportion of which is in Gauteng. Many live in Johannesburg’s inner city, and I have often received Zimbabweans in my legislature office asking for assistance.

Most claimed to be linked to the MDC opposition and told very sad stories. One activist spoke of torture that left him unable to have children. He wanted to go the armed struggle route, and it struck me that ANC exiles must have told similar stories and made similar appeals, but are now deaf to the Zimbabwean plight.

All my visitors detested Mbeki for collaborating with Mugabe. Much has been said about the “docility” of Zimbabweans in not fighting against an oppressive regime, but I think this underestimates how demoralizing Mbeki’s perceived support for Mugabe has been for them. Black South Africans, after all, were emboldened by support from the rest of Africa and by overseas campaigns on their behalf.

As recently as March last year, Mugabe received the biggest cheer at Ghana’s celebration of 50 years of independence.

It is quite striking to note how Zanu-PF uses many of the same arguments that the ANC uses here to justify their rule despite corruption and incompetence. For instance, the DA is constantly lectured that we only sit in parliament and other elected bodies because the ANC liberated the country.

The ANC shares with Mugabe the belief that a liberation movement has the legitimacy to rule in perpetuity, as in Jacob Zuma’s comment that the ANC will rule “until Jesus comes back”.

ANC members are probably envious that Mugabe has done many of the things they would like to do, such as mass expropriations of farms, but are restrained by the constitution and by economic reality.

There are other similarities, such as the blurring of party and state, and benefits conferred on the politically connected in the name of transformation.

John Kane-Berman of the SA Institute of Race Relations has warned of moves by the post-Polokwane ANC to subvert our constitution by centralising decisions in a Soviet-style politburo comprised of its 87-member National Executive Committee that will treat parliament as a rubber-stamp.

There are fortunately countervailing factors in South Africa, including independent-minded people in the ANC and a strong civil society.

We are also learning important lessons from Zimbabwe about the disastrous consequences of entrenched one-party rule, populist price controls and reckless printing of money. Would Mugabe still be cheered if he visited an event in South Africa?

I suspect that the ANC has propped up Mugabe because it fears that people here will learn something from the sight of a liberation movement being toppled.

The psychological effect could be huge as voters realize that they can punish the ANC for fiascos like the Eskom power failure by voting for another party.

This would be a crucial development in our democracy, transforming our largely identity-based politics into a real contest where policies and performance matter.