Writing this presented a dilemma. Do I go with the transience of a tweet, a form so beloved to the man, or the depth of the treatise — at which he was so adept?
In the end I went for a bit of both.
The Man
Born a Catholic, he lost his religion. But retained its tastes. He was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth but grabbed it with both hands as soon as it came into view.
He latterly lived a life of earned privilege, with a tendency to overshare on social media. He flexed for sure. But it wasn’t always this way. He grew up in a hardscrabble place in difficult circumstances, and survived penury and violation (rape) from an early age.
He went on to achievements as big as he was. A self-made man. He did it through a combination of education, grit and determination.
But he had help along the way — from teachers and academics who saw his considerable academic talents, to editors who spotted his instinct and articulate fluency, right through to friends and family, who met his needs. All opened up opportunity or facilitated it.
Infuriating and impatient. At times stubborn. A carrier of tales and teller of truths. He provoked anger and endearment. He was loved, liked, admired and reviled. But never ignored.
He had as much of a penchant for food, fun and frivolity as he did for wisdom, words and wine, the latter of which he eventually abandoned. And he let the world know.
His insecurities — and there were a few — bred a casual dismissiveness and disregard, rather than diffidence. But still, through it all — he remained marvellous. Publicly generous and privately mean. He was quick to anger, but fast to forgive.
He was nothing if not generous with praise and his possessions, but his meanness could be cutting — especially if he felt wronged. This could result in abrasive lashing out, or prolonged periods of silence. Either way you know where you stood. There wasn’t duplicity.
He pursued philosophy and whimsy with equal alacrity. He educated and entertained, irritated and antagonised. Wrote with conviction and spoke with determination.
He was so open-minded that I sometimes feared his mind would fall out
He demanded recognition of his full self, on his own terms — culturally coloured, politically black, sexually gay and personally queer. He was so open-minded that I sometimes feared his mind would fall out.
There was never any danger of that. He knew his mind, and knew it well. But it lacked the necessary element of uncertainty and doubt — essential for true speculative thought. He was fiercely anti-racist, decidedly political, and injustice filled him with an incandescent rage.
Bursting onto the national scene 15 years after South Africa’s transition, armed with three degrees in law and philosophy (cum laude) from Rhodes University, a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford, and an incomplete DPhil, he led the charge for a new breed of activist-intellectual academic.
Sociologically, he insisted that origin and identity not be stumbling blocks to a full life and a meaningful livelihood; that divisive and exclusionary historical legacies can be as odious as poor government in retarding social progress.
This is why the privations wrought by apartheid and its legacy, compounded by poor government, were the targets of his vitriol, along with deliberate marginalisation and exclusion.
Venomous as his vitriol may have been, origin and identity remained for him public policy problems to be solved, not instruments of political or intellectual capital. Where they were the product of prejudice he sought to subvert and correct that through absurdity and ridicule.
The Mirth
A renowned provocateur, he was audacious and irreverent. Possessed of rapier wit and an unwavering penchant for stirring the pot, McKaiser questioned the seemingly unquestionable and fearlessly tackled topics that most shy away from. And he forced polite society to confront them.
Nothing was safe from relentless scrutiny. On occasion, his debates had logic colliding with absurdity, and coherence wrestling with chaos. His audaciousness and irreverence challenged everyone’s thinking.
Manufacturing dissent, he thrived on controversy and relished contrarianism. He was an intellectual and political provocateur in pursuit of dissent, which sometimes had a tendency to overshadow his otherwise meaningful contribution. Known for a combative style, he inflamed emotions.
His debate training (he won the World Universities Debating Championship) could turn his approach to impatience and casual dismissiveness, making it appear he was more interested in “gotcha!” point-scoring, which reduced public policy problems to a “debate” for its own sake, rather than an attempt to find a solution.
He was not beyond cherry-picking data or arguments to fit a predetermined narrative, sometimes disregarding nuance and complexity. He was not above reframing questions to suit his own argumentative purposes.
A generally broad-minded Renaissance man who found himself in an age of woke, McKaiser was a genuine polymath who adopted some of the narrow idiosyncrasies of identity politics and its accompanying fundamentalisms.
But truth be told, even if you disagreed with him you couldn't help but be captivated by his quick thinking and his ability to make you question everything you thought you knew.
You also never knew when a profound observation would be followed by a hilarious one-liner. If anything, he showed that laughter and critical thinking can coexist, and that seriousness doesn't have to be stifling.
Initially impatient with the slow and deliberate processes of public institution building, as he matured he grew to appreciate their centrality, boring as that work was, to public life and good government.
The Magician
I always imagined McKaiser to be a magician of the mind, blessed with a strand of intellectual mischief. His impact extended beyond the boundaries of his personal pursuits.
He was a mentor to emergent and aspiring thinkers, broadcasters and young academics. He had a genuine generosity in sharing knowledge and in his unwavering support for emerging voices.
McKaiser elicited from readers and listeners (at least for me) a blend of admiration and amusement.
Possessed with irrepressible intellect and mischievous charm, he brought a unique blend of critical analysis and comic relief to the world of ideas and ideology, politics and popular culture.
Effortlessly straddling the worlds of wisdom and whimsy, he could dissect complex theories and ideas, unravelling their intricacies with precision. He was rigorous and capable of presenting his arguments with scholarly finesse, but also the brashness of the schoolyard bully — especially when he felt threatened.
His impact reached far and wide. Through his media presence and public engagements, he challenged societal norms and encouraged critical thinking on matters of equality.
Effortlessly straddling the worlds of wisdom and whimsy, he could dissect complex theories and ideas, unravelling their intricacies with precision
He fearlessly confronted issues of injustice, giving voice to the voiceless and shining a light on the darkest corners of our world — darknesses that he personally endured through penury, paternalism, racism, classism, and violation.
Recognising the power imbalances that permeate society, he promoted the voices of the marginalised and dispossessed and held the feet of public officials to the fire.
Through nuanced analyses he laid bare the structural injustices that persist, compelling us to confront the uncomfortable realities that often elude our collective gaze.
Drawing upon a vast tapestry of philosophical and sociopolitical ideas, his writing resonated with an unwavering commitment to social justice.
McKaiser possessed a rare blend of incisive intellect, meticulous reasoning, and an unyielding commitment to probing the complexities of our sociopolitical landscape.
His (self-described) top-down analytic approach was often accompanied by a lingering smile when he thought he was right, and the occasional eye-roll when he disagreed with you — and of course thought you were wrong.
The Myth
He could be a joyous spirit, infusing the pursuit of knowledge with a sense of mirth and merriment, except when it came to Christmas, when he turned into a grinch.
This was a long-standing tradition that was changed only at the persistence (and patience) of his loving long-time partner, Nduduzo Nyanda — who also reignited his familial side (and forced them to get a dog).
But McKaiser burnt as many bridges as he built. He carried his heft — both physically and intellectually — with confidence and care. The lucrative world of management consulting provided a comfortable living and public recognition.
He was in the vanguard of a new breed of public intellectual rethinking the apartheid condition. For starters he showed black South Africans — long conditioned to wait to be called to prominence and authority — that ambition is socially acceptable, even desirable.
A generation of young black South Africans now have the verve and confidence to take their place at the centre of public life.
McKaiser had a delightful penchant for odd clothes, and even odder musical choices (and this after achieving a grade 8 in piano). Then there was the sometime Sunday night fascination with Idols.
Philosophy he got. Poetry not.
He loved the jol, but hated jazz.
He was big. In heart and mind. On the page. In voice. On stage. In thought. And he seemed to grow bigger every day thanks to the twice daily visits to the gym. Not discounting the series of restaurants that he and Nyanda frequented, along with legions of friends, family, acquaintances and colleagues.
He was brilliant, bookish, boisterous, brash, brattish and occasionally a bully or badly behaved. He leaves South Africa’s public life poorer — for students who study, teachers who teach, players who play, authors who write, readers who read.
Poorer still will be the restaurants he frequented, the Ubers he rode and the salons he groomed at — but none will be as bereft as his colleagues, family and friends, whose lives he endlessly enriched.
• Fakir is the director of programmes at the Auwal Socio-Economic Research Institute and a long-standing friend of McKaiser’s. As a political analyst, he was a frequent guest on McKaiser’s radio shows and podcasts.
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.