IN Teams of Rivals, author Doris Goodwin notes how former US president Abraham Lincoln surrounded himself with people who had the capacity and tenacity to challenge him. He built a common cause with his cabinet to foster the interests of Americans.
In Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud, Tom Mueller laments how people fail to act out of apathy, complicity or fear. These two distinct texts raise the question of how leadership should react to criticism, and the requisite degree of freedom of speech that public representatives should have.
Similarly, the back-and-forth saga between Tourism Minister Lindiwe Sisulu and President Cyril Ramaphosa over whether she apologised for her opinion piece that criticised black judges.
Although Sisulu’s astuteness against critics from her party may be puzzling, her public exchanges that a statement by Ramaphosa was a “misrepresentation” of their meeting are more puzzling. Why? What are we to do about what some call a show of unprecedented defiance and others assertiveness? We need to ask whether Sisulu’s stance can be Ramaphosa vs Sisulu scold war: what about SA’s interests? adequately explained by those who label her as being arrogant and who deserve to be fired by Ramaphosa.
Public apologies are a common occurrence globally. They often come by way of assuming guilt, expressing remorse. Thus, proper apology etiquette requires the “wrongdoer” to deliver the apology. But this was not the case with Minister Sisulu.
Sisulu acted in a very public way with her opinion piece, and her response to the “apology in her name” released by the Presidency. Certainly, with her experience as a public figure, she was aware of the implications of her actions.
Furthermore, she was consistent with her narrative against criticism. Yet, we do not know why the Presidency saw the need to apologise on behalf of Sisulu. Perhaps it had unreasonable expectations that Sisulu would publicly accept what she disagreed with privately.
Notwithstanding the sincerity of the Presidency, supporters of President Ramaphosa will, on the one hand, be disillusioned by this own goal. At the same time, those who support Minister Sisulu may be encouraged by her steadfast refusal to accept a coerced apology, used as a shaming mechanism. She inadvertently represents a dynamic articulation of an alternative repertoire of contention in the ANC.
Lately, we have witnessed a surge of nationalism globally during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Economist referred to the narrative battle between China and the US over the pandemic as a “new scold war”, threatening to tear the world apart. But, as this Sino-US relationship reminds us, what is at stake is less the tit-for-tat scold war between Sisulu and Ramaphosa that threatens to spiral out of control, than the subdued attempts to attain constituent support within the ANC.
Sisulu herself has never publicly indicated her availability to contest the ANC presidency. If she does have such aspirations, engaging politically is one thing, but open defiance of authority is another. But where does this leave President Ramaphosa?
Many commentators have noted that his long game is no longer effective. But he wants to upend the notion that robust debates within ANC structures are not tolerated. He is wary of the propensity of ANC structures to support victimised members.
And while the scold war is in full swing, others will join in trying to win over ANC members.
Meanwhile, when failure to act decisively on predictable situations facing the country, particularly during a crisis; we can then no longer talk about protecting the interests of South Africans.
PROFESSOR SETHULEGO MATEBESI | Academic head of department and Associate Professor: Sociology, at the University of the Free State.
Daily News