Stanley Uys says it is time even prominent South Africans took off their racial spectacles
Dear Arch - I hope you don't mind me calling you Arch? You will remember you once wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the invitation, "Just Call Me Arch."
I am writing to you about the interview you gave to the Sunday Times in which you said you would not vote in next year's general elections unless "there are attempts at healing rifts, and people are not in the business of rubbing people's noses in the dust." Your remarks were discouraging. It is very unlike you to walk away from such a moral challenge.
The elections, due in about May, will be among the most critical in South Africa's history - even maybe the most critical - in the sense that for the first time in the ANC's 96-year history its supporters are seriously adrift, factions are being unleashed who have no clear identity or direction (they are something of a wild card, and a bit scary); and an entirely new party (Thabo Mbeki-orientated) is being formed to challenge Jacob Zuma and Kgalema Motlanthe as the custodians of the traditional ANC, its legend and logo.
I presume you supported the ANC in the 1994, 1999 and 2004 general elections? It is implicit in what you say. For you to walk away from them now would be incomprehensible. There are only a few national personalities left in South Africa who still carry real weight with the public, especially among the black South Africans where "rifts" (as you put it) have cut a swathe through reputations. Why then - when you are needed most - do you think of abdicating this unique position? A greater, not a lesser, responsibility rests on you. Is this because you take a gloomy view of the future, or have you just lost patience with politicians? If so, please bear in mind that at critical moments such as these often it is just a few good men and women who make all the difference.
In your interview, you gave examples of what could make you "sufficiently unhappy not to vote": the "brutal" way in which Thabo Mbeki was ousted, and the infighting in the ANC. You admit that South Africa effectively is a one-party state, and you welcome the formation of a new party, provided it is viable and rises phoenix like from what is beginning to look like the ashes of the old "broad church" ANC.
Understandably, you look to the ANC for the answer to your prayers. With 297 of the 400 National Assembly seats, it is the country's political power house. But there are 17 other political parties in the National Assembly, among them the Democratic Alliance (47 seats), Inkatha (23) and the United Democratic Movement (6). You brush them aside as if they are of no consequence, although in total they number a quarter of MPs. In the present, highly centralised context of our times, yes, the role of the opposition is diminished, but by your standards it is also a contradiction. Remember, you coined the phrase "Rainbow Nation". That means ethnic diversity - any one can join any party, and coalitions can emerge as the need arises.
In her (1988) biography of you, Shirley du Boulay wrote: "He (Tutu) is on a tightrope, in his own words, ‘a marginal man between two forces.' It is time to disentangle the strands of this rope and discover how it is that he has not yet lost his balance." Fate, Du Boulay observed, has "placed Tutu in the most polarised situations of recent times."
Well, 20 years have passed, Arch. Isn't it time to "disentangle the ropes" of ethnicity?
"You are saying that if you can't vote for the ANC you won't vote at all. Is this wise, Arch? By saying this you are, in effect, acceding to a one-party state. There are several alternatives to choose from, and if I may be so bold as to say so I think you need to examine the true reasons why you so thoughtlessly dismiss them. Could you be trapped in the ethnic political rut that has not only held Africa back, but has brought so much misery to the continent?"
If you "boycott" next May's elections, Arch, it means you dismiss the 17 opposition parties; you almost ask why they bother to exist if they are not "viable". Sure, some are fairly meaningless politically (I said so in these columns), but it is their constitutional right to exist. If in your opinion the DA is too "white" and the other 16 parties irrelevant, then isn't this the moment to confront the principle, once and for all, that a black man must be able to vote for a "white" party without being "disloyal" to his own ethnicity?
fine example he set