James Myburgh wrote an article recently, in which he decried the "racial lunacy" of South African Police Service's Employment Equity Plan (see article). Within that document, he identifies various affirmative action policy measures as constituting "an odious racial ideal" resulting in "racial discrimination", "exclusion" and leading to a "maltreatment of Africa's racial minorities". In support of this horrible analysis, he cites the case of Renate Barnard, a white ‘career' policewoman who seems convinced that she is no less than a victim of affirmative action policies as applied in the police force.

I suppose we do have an option to adopt Mr. Myburgh's revelation, maybe even, as the ever elusive key towards better race relations in future South Africa. In that event, who will disagree that the ideals of 1) addressing crime, 2) making South Africans feel safer and 3) building a strong police force, are far more important ideals than, well, racial redress?

But one wonders whether the practical consequences of this proposition would be consistent with the country's hard-fought agenda for racial equality, which millions sacrificed their lives for, if only to see its total realisation.

Let us assume that 1) all available senior vacancies in the police are filled with "experienced", "skilled" and "qualified" white people, and 2) South Africa achieves a ‘utopian' society - one without crime, where people feel safe and the police are excellent. What then? That is, how do we begin to address racial inequality, as an ideal that millions of black people died for under a repressive white state?

Would we then tell Ms. Renate Barnard that because of overwhelming income disparities, she now has to relinquish her senior position to a black candidate because there is no crime anymore, the people feel safe and the police are stronger? And would Ms. Barnard find a severance package and the numerical pursuit of demographic representation more acceptable then and not some form of "racial lunacy"?

The question I'm asking here, really, is whether we should wait for a society without any other social challenge before we deal with the issue of racial inequality? Herein resides the problem, in that equality seems to be a ‘side issue' as far as certain sectors of our society are concerned. As far as they seem to be concerned, the attainment of equality is not in the interest of the whole but of a few (and a large few for that matter). Therefore, everything else must, at least, supersede racial redress.

Even when one zooms to the Ms. Barnard saga, it seems her argument is not that she could be the answer to the current scourge of crime, but that it is unfair that she has not been rewarded with a promotion for her "excellent" performance because she's white. A question then begs: Has apartheid not rewarded white South Africans enough? How Mr. Myburgh conflates this cry for reward as an answer to crime, safety or strengthening the police remains somewhat mystical.

But maybe not...there could be something to deduce out of his choice of words, in particular, the unqualified reference to the concept of ‘(racial) discrimination or exclusion'. In summoning this concept to advance his argument, he does not tell us whether such ‘discrimination' is ‘fair' or ‘unfair'. As a result, he sustains the stereotype that all forms of discrimination within processes of social redress must be - without doubt - unfair.

Some have previously argued along this line, further suggesting that a non-racial solution can be the only means to addressing a race-based problem. But what then should social redress be about, since colonisation and apartheid were unapologetic about racial segregation. Should it be class, social status, religion, culture, gender...what? Or maybe we should all just develop a sudden but convenient amnesia about where we come from?

Setumo Stone is a writer, social commentator and youth activist

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter