28 September 2001
Johannesburg — More than a few in high places in SA must have looked longingly at the US patriotism we have seen these past two weeks. They should look away.
Most of us have observed with admiration or trepidation as the US has again evoked displays of unabashed patriotism from most of its citizens. Calls for South Africans to show a similar loyalty to the nation despite our divisions are often made. If only, we are often told, we could put the country above our narrow concerns, we would prosper.
Nowhere is this view stronger than in government. If there is a constant stream in the thinking of the ANC and other important parts of the post-1994 elite, it is the desire that we all show loyalty to a common nation.
Even when the speaker is said to be expressing views hostile to racial minorities, anyone who listens carefully will usually hear an urgent plea to whites and sometimes other minorities to show their commitment to our country.
This preoccupation is understandable even admirable. Central to apartheid was the idea that we were not and never could be one people: small wonder that uniting us all is seen as the final defeat of that system. And it is admirable because one needs only look a little to our north to see that a desire to include the formerly ruling minority is not the only possible response by those who have experienced race domination.
But that said, there are good reasons why we should not see US-style patriotism as a model.
There are two aspects of US patriotism that make it unsuitable for import here.
First, the US may be effective in absorbing new cultures and groups note how Americans in traditional Muslim dress appear on TV to deplore the attacks. But there is a dominant culture which new groups are expected to embrace: and, since immigrants desperately want to become American, they are only too pleased to do so.
What would a dominant culture here look like? While the cultural products of the west are far stronger than many might acknowledge, there is resistance to them by black intellectuals and it is hard to imagine a spontaneous national unity built around someone else's symbols.
Attempts to impose African culture might founder on whose traditions should hold sway (since, like all interesting places, Africa is highly diverse). Nor would racial minorities find much reason to rally around a society whose symbols they saw as someone else's. What about inventing a hybrid culture to which we can all ascribe? Indonesia's dictators used to win high praise for doing just that. But their experiment in manufacturing national unity lasted only as long as the military force which had underpinned it.
This does not mean we are terminally polarised. If we were, we would not have negotiated an end to apartheid. Recent polls confirm again a high degree of loyalty to a common SA; our ability to absorb bits of each others' cultures may be greater than we think. But any attempt to impose a unity on us is likely to cause bickering over who should decide what being South African is.
In sum, our strength is our ability to share a common space despite our differences. It is that which we need to build.
Second, the sort of unity the Americans are displaying excludes as well as includes them: people are not only uniting with, but against, others. The official view is that the "enemy" is not a race or religion but individual murderers. But not everyone shares this: some attack Middle Easterners or Muslims. And there is also talk of arresting immigrant "terrorist suspects".
Who would South Africans unite against? And who are our allies in our fight against them? Think of any conceivable enemy, and there will be vocal South Africans who support them. Think of any imaginable ally and there are South Africans who detest them.
So if US-style unity is impossible here, are we doomed to despair? Not if we understand our presumed weakness as a strength.
Post-apartheid SA should be an example of how to recognise and live with difference. Our problem is not that we do not dissolve our differences but that few of us recognise them as a strength. Rather than seek to become a place where everyone rallies around one culture, we can try even harder to be one where all are free to identify with what is important to them as long as they respect the law and the values in our constitution. We can retain our differences, but co-operate across them.
That approach may have applications beyond our borders. Today's world holds new dangers of polarisation the phrase "you are either with us or against us" is being heard again. Perhaps there is room in this insisting that we are against violence in the pursuit of political ends no matter who perpetrates it and with those who suffer it, whoever they are.
These nice-sounding phrases are anything but bland in today's world. They suggest that states, like people, can agree on some things and disagree on others that we can respect difference if it is expressed without hurting others.
Right now, that is unlikely to be a stance which wields much influence. Over time, if we seek like-minded allies, it could set an example which will point to options which might reduce violence across the globe, offering an alternative to an endless cycle of force meeting force.
Friedman is director of the Centre for Policy Studies.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2001 Business Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
