Introduction

Given the state of current affairs - the extent of the various crises, each of which seems to unfold and multiply exponentially - one would be forgiven for thinking that reason has lost its footing in South African politics. After all, surely common sense provides the obvious answers to a great many of the problems we face?

It is a fair question, and one worth thinking about. What role does reason play in South Africa today? In the face of an ANC monolith, divided and yet determined to impose its will, what use is a sound argument? Can one turn the tide and change opinion by presenting a well-argued case?

If the Scorpions are anything to go by, it would seem not. Reason and strong argument are either dismissed or ignored in favour of an entirely party political agenda, which is both partisan and illogical.

Yet to dismiss reason, as the ANC so often does, is a grave mistake. It cannot be ignored indefinitely, and its power resides in the fact that the conclusion towards which it takes one is inevitable and cannot be wished away.

In a country where, increasingly, the ruling party's political agenda is constantly trying to subvert reason, it is essential that civil society and the media are able to properly identify and effectively use it to counter those damaging ideas and positions which threaten democracy. And key to this is the ability to construct and employ a sound argument.

In this article I look at the idea of a strong argument in more detail, identify some of the negative effects that the ANC's politics have had on public discourse and explore what some of the consequences of this have been.

What is a good argument?

Any cogent and convincing argument is founded on sound reasoning and reliant on its articulate expression. If either of these two requirements is not met, the resultant argument will be flawed and, in turn, unpersuasive: if an argument's reasoning is illogical, it can be dismantled and, if its language is clumsy, then its purpose can be misunderstood or misrepresented.

Sound reasoning is the product of intelligent thought. It is informed by precedent, built on logic and bolstered by evidence. If an argument is original, this too counts in its favour; not only because it adds to public knowledge and enlivens discussion, but also because any debate is fundamentally shaped and informed by the initial premise around which it unfolds.

In each case, the degree to which a person is able to comply with these criteria determines the strength of their argument.

No less important is an ability to properly articulate one's reasoning. And, an ability to effectively use language and writing is inextricably linked to the strength of an argument's resultant logic and its persuasiveness. Indeed, it is hard to say which comes first, the logic that defines an argument or the words that define one's logic. Either way, the intelligent use of both is essential.

Words and language also serve another purpose - to give life to an argument. And here I do not refer to its concrete expression, but to its nature: whether it is bold and decisive, captivating and powerful; or whether it is bland and ambiguous, mundane and indifferent. Words do not only serve a functional purpose (as the tools one uses to define logic); they are the lifeblood of any piece of writing and, when chosen with care and consideration, the difference between a dull distraction and the magnetic pull of a well thought out and tightly written opinion.

The state of South African public debate

South Africa 's public discourse is not one defined by good argument. Too often, it is marked by the poor use of language and an absence of considered thought; frequently, ‘arguments' are structured around clichés and a thick fog of political correctness blurs clear thinking.

Dismantling shoddy reasoning is a sizeable task, for even the most basic error often requires a substantial response. It is not enough simply to state a counter position. If one is set on convincing others of the validity of your argument and the implausibility of another, one needs to: first, identify the problem with the opposing position; second, explain why the opposing position is problematic; third, state your position and, fourth, explain in convincing fashion why your position is the correct one.

There is a saying in politics - "explaining is losing" - a reference to the idea that, if you find yourself having to justify your choices in the public arena, you are on the defensive; and being on the defensive makes you both vulnerable and reactive, two traits to be avoided in political debate.

There is some truth to this: if you are being vulnerable you are not being strong or confident; and if you are being reactive, you are not being proactive and positive. In each case, the latter is supposedly more desirable to a voter than the former. But this idea is flawed. In the same way that it is necessary to speak truth to power and not to cower before orthodoxy, it is a necessary requirement of healthy public debate that arguments are properly tested and, if flawed, their shortcomings exposed; by the same token, if their reasoning is indeed sound, that they be rigorously defended. That standard should also be required of those whose position you would seek to dispute. This constitutes an important part of public debate.

Yet this particular skill is a dying art in South Africa and, although not entirely, a large proportion of the blame for the situation can be laid at the feet of the ruling party, as it has relentlessly sought to diffuse its own orthodoxy into all elements of public debate.

The unseen parameters

There are a few safe havens, where the ANC's political rhetoric is properly interrogated and scrutinised for what it is - the DA being the most prominent - but, outside of these, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the basic laws of public debate have been negatively influenced by a set of unseen parameters, which act to restrict independent thought, undermine rational consideration and constrain one's imagination.

On a grand scale, they act to limit our reasoning, to subvert our logic and to deny the legitimacy of that evidence which, normally, would support any argument not in line with the dominant orthodoxy.

Space does not allow for a full interrogation of all the unseen laws of South African public debate, thus, for the purposes of this argument, I shall simply identify only a few of them:

• A widely held belief that, if you are white, you must accept that by living in apartheid South Africa you were complicit in it, you must renounce racism and, critically, you must embrace the ANC;
• A widely held belief that, if you are black, the ANC represents the only true and authentic political movement able to protect, promote and fight for your interests - not on the basis of its policy programmes, but on the basis of race;
• An assumption that, as a political party, the ANC occupies the moral high ground in South African politics and that, as a consequence, other political parties are less legitimate;
• An assumption that there is a cultural hierarchy; that ‘African' cultures are more legitimate that ‘Western' cultures and that the latter should be subservient to the former.

There are others, but these four are particularly common and often act to warp and restrict public debate. They are almost never explicitly stated, yet very often assumed, a sort of perverted common cause that constrains our ability to reason properly.

A limited language

But there are other constraints too. You will remember from the introduction to this piece that I identified two elements to a good argument - its reasoning and how well it is articulated. If these unseen laws affect the former, the ANC's use of language affects the latter. And both are equally destructive.

In broad terms, South African public debate is now defined by a very particular kind of language: one with a limited vocabulary, an over-reliance on a particular and often-repeated set of phrases and ideas, and a lack of imagination and creativity.

Perhaps the most significant consequence - a result of their abuse - is that important words have lost their meaning. Consider the following examples: ‘democracy', ‘security', ‘accountability', ‘constitutionalism', ‘independence' and ‘race'.

One might well ask in South Africa today, what is accountability? Hardly a day goes by without it being used in a political speech or newspaper opinion piece, but what does it mean? Is there a consensus on its key characteristics? The answer is no. In many ways - and to many people - it means everything and nothing. Its abuse and misuse - largely by the ANC itself - has left it denuded of any real meaning. It is true there is some broad idea of what it entails, but this is so vague as to render it largely unhelpful. The same could be said of any of the other words identified above.

As recent events illustrate, even the word "kill" has been stripped of its meaning by the ruling party - its implications and use now appear entirely negotiable.

In the same way that those unseen laws act to limit our capacity to reason properly, so this abuse of language acts to dilute the sharpness and limit the scope of debate, and to numb the public mind. For if one's first principles are meaningless, warped or vague, it is impossible to construct an argument that can be easily understood and which serves to build and develop ideas and drive a society forward; instead, like a broken record, the nature of the argument itself inevitably becomes the subject of discussion and no debate leads anywhere.

Conclusion

There are many parallels between this trend and the relationship between nationalism and mediocrity, outlined in a previous edition of The Real ANC Today. An obsession with processes instead of outcomes, and an inclination to subvert principle to the dominant orthodoxy mirrors the trend outlined above. The consequences of both are fairly dire for our democracy in general and the ability of civil society and the media to act as an effective counter weight, in particular.

Euripides said "reason can wrestle with terrors, and overthrow them". He was quite right. Reason is one of the most powerful weapons we have. Respect for it and its proper use is essential to a functioning democracy. Indeed, reason is the very language citizens should use to negotiate with the state. And its role in the relationship between the state and its citizens has two components to it.

First, at all times, the state (and those political parties that control it) must be able to justify the decisions it makes in a manner that is easily understood and which can be defended and explained. If they cannot, or a better, more convincing argument to the contrary is established, the state's decisions must change accordingly.

Second, there must never be a situation in which a well founded argument is dismissed on grounds which have little to do with its content and everything to do with its context. Reason must be an empowering tool in the hands of all citizens. Its nature and form should not be subject to political considerations or the pressures of a dominant orthodoxy.

In an Open Opportunity Society for All, reason would play such a function. Its role in society would be elevated, its use championed and promoted and, even when it led to a conclusion which might run contrary to a particular party political agenda, that outcome would be respected. Indeed, the DA would fight to make these three elements the foundation of the dominant orthodoxy, so that reason acts to keep the prejudices of the ruling party in check and sits in harmony with its objectives.

This article first appeared on the Democratic Alliance weblog, The Real ANC Today, August 17 2008

Sign up to politicsweb-by-email by clicking here.