In the wake of videos of DA MP Renaldo Gouws using racial slurs against black people, and being charged by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) for hate speech, debate has erupted about what this means for our quest towards social cohesion. Responses included interesting insights into what some people believe racism, and for that matter social cohesion, to be.
Quite a number of people implied that anger at Gouws’s utterances showed a lack of self-esteem on the part of black South Africans. For these people, Gouws’s comments were undeniably racist and ought to be condemned. What they also say is that if a black person is upset at a racist utterance by a white person, then the former places too much emphasis on the opinion of the latter. For these folks, racist speech only has power if we allow it to have power.
This response is incredibly flawed. It reduces racism to “a bad word somebody said”, and does not acknowledge it for what it is: a system that aims to subjugate and demean members of another race. This system does not begin and end with somebody saying a bad word. It is layered. It is multifaceted.
As a citizen, Gouws has the responsibility and the obligation not to use speech that expresses hatred of a person based on their race, among many other characteristics. This obligation becomes even greater when Gouws becomes a politician, and indeed, an MP. Lawmakers ought to respect the constitution and what it stands for.
If racists are allowed to utter their reprehensible speech in public, then little stops them from enacting their views in their homes, workplaces and any other institutions over which they have power
In his comments made on video a few years ago, as well as comments on social media platforms up to a few weeks ago, Gouws does not seem to share the commitment to the constitution that I, and many other South Africans, expect of a lawmaker. Over the years, Gouws has repeatedly made comments that skirt dangerously close to racism, if not being outright racist.
Therefore, we cannot chalk Gouws’s 2009 comments down to simple immaturity. We can see that video as part of a larger network of behaviour that ranges from politically insensitive to disgustingly racist. Contrary to what some may believe, racism does not begin only when a white person utters the “k-word”. An individual is racist if their words, actions and behaviours are consistent with the tropes of white supremacy.
DA leader John Steenhuisen’s comment that Gouws, 26 at the time, was being “young and irresponsible” is textbook minimisation of the harms of racism. By framing it as a mistake that anyone could make, Steenhuisen misunderstands what makes racist speech as dangerous as it is — if racism is normalised as a legitimate opinion then more people will reveal their racist prejudices to the public, because they will know that they speak as part of a collective.
If racists are allowed to utter their reprehensible speech in public, then little stops them from enacting their views in their homes, workplaces and any other institutions over which they have power. They will do this under the guise of “free speech” and “freedom of association”.
Even the excuse that Gouws was merely countering Julius Malema’s controversial comments makes it seem as if the only acceptable way to respond to speech you do not like is to denigrate the racial group with which the speaker (in this case Malema) identifies. The excuse presupposes that racism can be good, sometimes.
The result is overt racial discrimination when a black South African applies for a job at a predominantly white corporate firm. The result is white South Africans hurling slurs at black South Africans who dare to stay in an area populated by white people. The result is an affront to the very idea of a constitutional order that has anti-discrimination as one of its core tenets.
These aren’t merely theoretical exercises — not so long ago, South Africa had a political, social and legal system that explicitly discriminated on the grounds of race. This affected our social settings, our geography, our economy. This affected our country’s standing on the international stage. It was all-encompassing, and it wasn’t based on one white person saying the “k-word” to one black person. If anything, that was the inevitable outcome of such a system.
Anyone with a serious commitment to social cohesion should find Gouws’s alleged comments to be horrid. If we agree that apartheid was a horrid system that we seek to move away from, then Gouws’s speech detracts from our collective aims as a country.
Black South Africans who are angered by racist speech are right to express that anger. It is a protest against the conditions that underpinned apartheid. It is a stance that affirms the concept of nonracism, and lays the groundwork for a more equitable system. It ensures that white South Africans know such behaviour is unacceptable, and that they should work towards rooting it out.
Gouws is a product of society. He was raised in a multiplicity of environments — his home, school, circle of friends, and so on. He learnt certain messages about how black people “ought to be” perceived. This does not absolve him of agency. If he wanted to be a public figure who speaks about politics and society, then he should have done better by the black South Africans about whom he writes and speaks on his platforms.
So if we want to see a replication of Gouws’s comments, by him or by others, then we should give him a slap on the wrist. We should accuse the SAHRC of double standards, and we should show videos of black politicians making controversial comments as a way to portray Gouws as a victim.
But we have to do better than that. By understanding the various permutations of racism, and applying them to Gouws and his comments, we can make headway towards building the kind of South Africa that we all can be proud of.
• Zondi is a writer and analyst
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.