A regime which has harnessed anti-black sentiments and weaponised white grievance would always be threatened by any nation which is attempting to make meaningful race-conscious efforts to repair centuries of racial-based harm.
The recent declaration by US President Donald Trump singling out South Africa for its land redistribution and racial redress policies has triggered international interest. Trump has accused the South African government of “confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people very badly”.
Targeting South Africa is the latest attempt by the new American presidential administration to weaponise the language of discrimination to target race-conscious policies both in the US and now internationally.
Amid an environment of evolving pressure and intimidation, it is vital that South Africa remains a staunch proponent of the principle of substantive equality, that true anti-racism requires an honest confrontation with the legacy and continued salience of race.
In much the same way as South Africa in its democratic era has often had to stand up as a champion for progressive human rights both locally and globally, reclaiming the cause of anti-racist politics from being hijacked by Trump and his ally Elon Musk should remain a key political, diplomatic and legal imperative.
Backlash campaign
Since the 2020 racial uprisings in the US sparked the largest political mobilisation in American history, and which triggered global calls to address the systemic and institutional racism against black people, there has been a coordinated backlash campaign designed to undermine whatever progress that movement made.
This first emerged as a campaign against Critical Race Theory, the academic framework that studies the ways racism is perpetuated in policymaking and the law, to a broader attack on books and education that reckon with the legacies of racism.
What was at times misunderstood as merely a “culture war”, has now metastasised into a broader political witch-hunt against all things deemed “woke”, whether they are diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, affirmative action or the broader architecture of civil rights in the United States.
This battle has found common allies not only with Trump and Elon Musk, but also with a varied coalition that includes the most conservative US Supreme Court in over a century, and a toxic right-wing media ecosystem.
They are united in their desire to attack all race-conscious initiatives and replace them with strict colour-blind or race-neutral policies. They justify this by arguing that these efforts, which seek to address structural and institutional barriers for people of colour in the United States, have gone too far and have resulted in government-sanctioned discrimination against white people.
They sustain such an argument by contending for a system of formal equality where no reference is made to race in government policy, notwithstanding the reality that many groups continue to suffer as a consequence of racial policies in both past and present. They go further by then seeking to attack any initiatives and frameworks that contextualise this racial history.
The SA situation
In comparison in South Africa, while there is a vocal but small minority that shares many of the same political viewpoints of this “anti-woke” faction, they have for years been marginalised by the wholesale rejection of colour-blind policies by the majority of the South African population, the courts and official government policies.
In contrast, we see the provocations of groups such as AfriForum that have politicised the prevalence of crime in rural areas as a “farm murder” epidemic which targets white people. We also see the policy work of groups such as the Institute of Race Relations and the Free Market Foundation that have sought to present a liberal critique of race-conscious policies such as BB-BEE and affirmative action in higher education.
While this view has largely remained the minority, it has always remained powerful, whether it has been a cause supported by the Democratic Alliance or a view held by many in the business community.
However, in a series of cases, the South African courts have embraced a notion of substantive equality that rejects the narrow colour-blind formalism advocated by Trump and his allies in the conservative movement both in the US and in South Africa.
‘Substantive equality’
In terms of the South African Constitution, taking active measures to address past discrimination is not seen as an exception to equality, but an essential component of it and this broad principle has been affirmed in numerous cases.
In supporting affirmative race-conscious redress efforts over a narrow formal equality, Justice Dikgang Moseneke once wrote “at the point of transition, two decades ago, our society was divided and unequal along the adamant lines of race, gender and class… [The Constitution] hopes to have us reimagine power relations within society… It enjoins us to take active steps to achieve substantive equality, particularly for those who were disadvantaged by past unfair discrimination”.
While land redistribution policies are governed in a separate section of the Constitution, it has long been understood that in a country where race has played such a significant role in the distribution of resources and life chances, it would be morally wrong and practically ineffectual to not attempt to redress this inequality with reference to race.
Anti-black sentiments
Many have speculated about whether the Trump administration’s singling out of South Africa might be retribution for Palestinian solidarity or more cynically, because of business frustrations with South African regulators.
While these might hold some truth, we would be naïve to miss the wood for the trees: a regime which has harnessed anti-black sentiments and weaponised white grievance would always be threatened by any nation which is attempting to make meaningful race-conscious efforts to repair centuries of racial-based harm.
Moreover, anti-blackness has undergirded much of this agenda, whether that was the Republican attack on Kamala Harris as being a DEI candidate (as if that is a pejorative), to Trump’s attempts to blame the recent plane crash in Washington DC on DEI policies, and the government efforts to shut down Black History Month celebrations.
This is part of an organised effort to erase black accomplishment and delegitimise black people in any positions of authority, in much the same way successful black people in South Africa often face accusations that they are “BEE candidates”.
It is evident that much of the criticism about race-conscious policies and frameworks has less to do with the notion that they violate equality norms and rather that they would disadvantage the privileged position of many white people who have come to expect the best land, the best jobs and places in the best universities.
Any redress efforts, whether on the topic of land or other affirmative action efforts, must be carried out in a legal regime, sanctioned by the Constitution, which gives due respect to the dignity interests of all parties.
Liberty and justice for all, not some
So new efforts designed to make it easier for the state to facilitate its constitutional obligations, such as the Expropriation Act, should be welcomed. And there is still a vital need for more education to be conducted to better educate the public and international community about the goals and limitations of the legislation, particularly on social media platforms where misinformation abounds.
What South Africa does not need is to be intimidated by an increasingly reactionary government that seeks to undermine the delicate balance we have maintained to peaceably attempt to reconstruct this country.
This continues to be an aspirational goal for a nation that might have overturned its oppressive legal order, but retains an economic system built on exploitation and dispossession.
We should not heed the advice of this new American regime that chooses to uphold its mantra of liberty and justice, not for all, but only for some. DM