A bitterly fought election campaign is already underway in South Africa, even before the announced date of the 2016 local government poll. And racism, land and traditional law have become the major areas of contention.
It is a verbal war and, as always in such cases, opportunism proliferates and rational analysis gives way to demagogic pronouncements that often stoke the fires of prejudice while professing to dampen them, usually in the name of justice.
Politicians of all stripes, whether of the parliamentary or extra-parliamentary variety, are the main culprits as they compete to gain the votes or the support of sections of the public. Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) commander-in-chief, Julius Malema provided a classic example, sniping at the governing ANC, with his support for jailed former AbaThembu king, Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo.
Dalindyebo is serving a 12-year prison term for kidnapping, assault, arson and culpable homicide, acts he says were carried out in accordance with customary law. Provision is made for customary law to be practiced in South Africa, but only within the bounds of the constitution and national legislation. Yet Malema maintains that it was a travesty that the ANC government did not to pardon Dalindyebo.
But opportunism extends beyond politicians and into the media and business where uncritical support, whether tacit or open, for proclaimed and simplistic solutions is seen as a means to curry favour, usually with political factions perceived to be powerful.
Political parties, especially during election campaigns, can be expected to make capital out of any opportunity to score points against their opponents. And it was an opportunity not to be missed when the ANC discovered that a local retired estate agent, Penny Sparrow, who posted a racist rant on social media, was a member of the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA).
But just as one sparrow does not a summer make, nor does one or even a clutch of racists taint an entire political party if that party professses democratic values. Where members of political parties transgress, they should be held to account and — as happened to Sparrow — be suspended, pending a disciplinary, for bringing their parties into disrepute. And should be expelled.
However, in cases where comments go beyond racism into hate speech as defined by the Constitution, then legal action should follow. And stiff penalties should apply to anyone found guilty of advocating “hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm”.
“Incitement to cause harm” is a crucial distinction. For example, the social media comment by Velaphi Khumalo that last week caused a furore probably qualifies in this regard. Referring to “whites” Khumalo tweeted: “We must act as Hitler did to the Jews.” He has been suspended from his government job.
Worryingly, this frenzy about racism has deflected attention from deep rooted problems such as poverty and joblessness and has promoted a reactionary knee-jerk call to ban racism and racists. Among those making this call are self proclaimed non-racists of various ethnic origins and skin shades.
Yet anyone claiming to be non racist — or non-sexist — is either deluded or a liar. In a society where sexism and racism are deeply ingrained, it is impossible not to be, perhaps unconsciously, afflicted by elements of such prejudices.
So while a non-racist, non-sexist and fully egalitarian society is an admirable aim, it is one that must be struggled for until, in the perhaps quite distant future, the idea of racism or of sexism becomes meaningless.
Until then, anyone honestly professing this egalitarian ideal, can only be an anti-racist and anti-sexist. The same, of course applies to homophobia and to other isms and phobias that denigrate “the other” in any society.
In South Africa, where the geography of apartheid has been maintained by successive governments, social divisions continue to maintain, even encourage, historic prejudices. The limited, but significant deracialisation of the wealthier strata in society has also done nothing to curb this; it has probably strengthened the patronising and fundamentally racist notion among self-styled white liberals that some of “them” can actually become as superior as “us”.
Then there is language — and English is as good an example as any — that contains many value-loaded expressions and cultural allusions that can be readily misunderstood, especially in a multi-cultural and multi-lingual society. There are also many casual expressions inherited from a deeply racist past that can be hurtful and are, in essence, racist. These cannot be dealt with by legislation, but by education; by discussion and debate.
The myth of South Africa as a “rainbow nation” is at last being laid to rest. But in order to build real unity in diversity the demagogues on all sides must be confronted, along with the racists and purveyors of hate speech.
Cape Town, South Africa-based journalist commentator and author specialising in political and economic analysis and labour matters. 
Terry Bell Writes 
Terence Grant
January 16, 2016
Racism born out of necessity(sent to Cape Times)
I refer to the editorial in which Cape Times suggests sending racists to jail.
People are poor: they see their leaders enriching themselves and ruining the economy and see that whites have the resources to lift them –at least temporarily- out of poverty.
Consequently, they walk cheerfully past a statue of Shaka, but because of their need to ensure that whites do not wriggle off the hook , have an apoplexy when they see a statue of Cecil John Rhodes for he, unlike Shaka, represents a group that is worth hating .Therin lies the rub: the poor have nothing to gain by hating a group that is poor but when confronted by a group that is rich will always find(come hell or high water) an excuse or reason to hate the rich, and to pressurize them into paying compensation for the’ unforgivable’ things they or their ancestors did to them or to their ancestors.
Accordingly, there is perilously little to be gained by declaring war on racism for our racism is born out of necessity –out of the need to do what one must do to eat and lift oneself out of poverty-and hence can only recede if the economy improves and therefore leaves the poor with less reason to hate. Which brings us to Zuma, who clearly does not have the education or the intelligence to preside over a modern economy, and compounds matters further by firing anyone who stands in the way of him enriching himself and his cronies. What is the ANC –which removed Mbeki from office –going to do about Zuma? Will it force him to surround himself with people who know what they are doing or will it sit quietly while he drags us all down the drain?
Terence Grant
Cape Town
PS: I am saying that anti-white sentiment will increase as the economy worsens and will result in whites feeling threatened and becoming more racist. We urgently need someone at the helm who understands his own shortcomings and is prepared to seek advice from people who have made it to the top/are recognized experts.
Lourens
March 28, 2017
Racism is a worldwide problem, it’s a human problem. It can be controlled, by legislation, education, and other projects. But the real solution is to be found elsewhere. Visit http://racismchristian.blogspot.co.za/ for more on this matter.
Terry Bell
March 29, 2017
In the first place, race itself is a misnomer. As has been said many times before, There is only one race — the human race. We are all related. The divisions that exist are always promoted — and originate with – one group that wishes to dominate another. This is usually in the interests of an elite minority, often headed by a self-proclaimed leader. Racism, as with any other ideology that discriminates against others such as sexism, homophobia or any other prejudice, must be countered. Therefore we should all be antiracist. Christianity, like Judaism, Islam and most other religious beliefs would support this contention. But it certainly does not require religious belief to support the logical and humanist position that all people should have equal rights. In other words, a religious belief of any kind is not essential in order to be antiracist or to challenge racism.