It was exactly 10 years ago that I developed a fascination with the intellectual rebel I saw in Eusebius McKaiser and the finesse with which he tackled complexity.
I was awestricken. At the time, he wrote intermittently for the Mail & Guardian and I was selling my modest labour as editor of The Star. He became a regular contributor to the then Irish-owned newspaper, pushing against all boundaries and creating headaches for a young editor still figuring things out.
Editors know there are columnists whose work could get both of them fired. Fast. So it’s a good idea to scrutinise their work carefully before publication. McKaiser was one such columnist.
He captured the zeitgeist of a mutating nation, suffering no fools, making no apologies for the buffoonery of Jacob Zuma or for his pipe-smoking predecessor. He exhibited a fierce independence of mind that was to be the hallmark of his commentary not just about the ruling ANC, but about opposition parties too.
McKaiser spoke as well as he wrote. He was pedantic, too. Like all self-respecting writers, he worried about syntax and headlines. He fiddled. He made suggestions. Would this work better? He didn’t understand that editors on deadline have more to worry about than one person’s column.
Managing a sharp, complex mind obsessed with excellence is one of the toughest responsibilities that leaders have. I was later to hear stories about how McKaiser sometimes clashed with the producers for his radio shows, and I asked him about it.
“If a producer is going to help decide not just what topics to tackle, but what questions to ask, they surely must be that much versed on the topic,” he replied. “But if I question them and I find them wanting, I may as well produce the show, at least the bits that relate to the news content.”
Seven years later, at Sunday World, I asked him to write a column for us, but his rate was more than we could afford. “If you want quality, you must be prepared to pay for it,” he said.
One month later, I joined TimesLIVE and, lo and behold, discussions between him and Pule Molebeledi, Arena MD for news and media, had advanced.
The mark of a great analyst is a knack of going against the grain, of seeing the point others have missed
Being his editor was as much a source of joy and inspiration as it was stressful.
People who write well attract both disciples and critics. Their words ensnare you. McKaiser, through his writing and broadcasts, was a teacher. He taught us how to master the topics about which we write. His love of books was obvious.
His pedantry could be unnerving even while it was, at the same time, welcome. If he cared that much about the little things in his column, I thought, surely he worried just as much about his subject matter. That’s reassuring for an editor.
The McKaiser who served TimesLIVE until this week was different to the 2013 chap. This more mature version wasn’t trying to prove that he was the best, or seeking to be accepted into the elite club of observers of society. One of the things we liked about him was his ability to transform his well-written text into well-argued audio or video material.
The mark of a great analyst is a knack of going against the grain, of seeing the point others have missed. For example, during the annual media fever about matric results this year, McKaiser introduced a note of sceptism.
“Beware the danger of exceptional ‘against all odds’ matric stories.” he wrote. “Stories of individual triumphs can inspire and distract us … [but] no child should have to be brilliant against all odds. No-one. It is an injustice to expect someone, in deep rural Eastern Cape (we can say anywhere), on an empty stomach, with no school library or science lab, to have to get an A or even merely pass.”
Of course, he was right. And of course some ignored him, simply because we love a happy ending to a sad tale.
In February last year, President Cyril Ramaphosa said in his state of the nation address: “In trying times, we have shown courage and resilience. Time and time again, we have pulled ourselves back from the brink of despair and inspired hope, renewal and progress. Now, we must do so again.”
McKaiser’s take on this was: “The president is demanding you be resilient in the face of an economy that is not growing beyond 2%, unemployment that is at 47% and equally dire statistical truths about the various dimensions of poverty and inequality.”
The president may have thought, “Hawu, but I am just trying to give people hope.” But for McKaiser, hope was supposed to be more than a carelessly used word.
He could analyse a line in a speech that seemed at first to be perfectly innocuous, and show us just how wrong it was. He directed our attention at fundamental issues — how we expect children to learn without libraries, and adults to thrive in a floundering economy.
With the post-liberation euphoria gone, questions needed to be asked about how to chart a new course. McKaiser sought out the difficult conversations, almost as if he knew he was running out of time.
He spoke his truth, often to power. He leaves behind a country still in the grip of myriad challenges. He leaves behind a people yearning for real hope, not pretty lies. But he can rest in peace; when we leave here, our in-tray will never be empty. Some tasks we leave for our heirs.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.