VALLI MOOSA | Our constitution is no accident of history

Who would have imagined that a generation after the adoption of South Africa’s constitution, in 1996, there would be a small group of men, both black and white, who unashamedly campaign against equal rights and fundamental freedoms?

Some attack the constitution by claiming it is Eurocentric, that it was drafted by whites, or that it was secretly written by imperialists in Washington and imposed upon us. Others denounce it from the opposite extreme, insisting it promotes “white genocide”, serves as a blueprint for socialism, or that the Bill of Rights is “woke”.

It is tempting to dismiss such views, to say: take them from whence they come.

Of course, from whence they come is not unimportant, but let me first deal with the actual substance.

Our constitution is no accident of history. It is the product of a glorious freedom struggle against apartheid — that crime against humanity — and of a vision for an enlightened future. It was drafted by 490 democratically elected members of the Constitutional Assembly over a two-year period, from 1994 to 1996.

The very composition of the assembly was a representation of South African society in all its diversity. They came from every corner of urban and rural South Africa.

On April 27 1994, 20-million voters granted the 490 members of this assembly the sovereign mandate to draft and adopt a constitution for the free South Africa; they decided to go beyond the call of duty by doing everything humanly possible to actively involve the people as a whole in the drafting process.

The public consultation process that followed stands out as a monument in itself. Its extent, scale and reach has no equal in pre- or post-apartheid South Africa.

The first step was to hold all meetings — including of its committees — in full public view. None of the debates and discussions were held behind closed doors. All proceedings were extensively reported in the media.

This constitution was genuinely the making of the South African nation. How is it that a small number of people are doing everything to question its legitimacy? Anyone who knows the history of our constitution will find this very perplexing. Is it really out of genuine ignorance of how and who made our constitution?

This constitution was genuinely the making of the South African nation.

How is it that a small number of people are doing everything to question its legitimacy? Anyone who knows the history of our constitution will find this very perplexing. Is it really out of genuine ignorance of how and who made our constitution?

This year will go down in history as the one in which white supremacists in South Africa, the US, the UK, Europe and elsewhere abandoned all sense of shame and walked out of the shadows to spit bile on anyone who is not white.

Could it be that after centuries of a world ruled by white men, what we are seeing is a rebellion against the sharing of wealth and power with others — with women and with people of colour?

Their brazenness takes one’s breath away. In thinly veiled racism, they talk about the “Western way of life” being under threat; meaning, of course, that white monopoly on privilege and power is under threat.

We are fortunate in South Africa that this is not a general sentiment among whites. The few who promote white supremacism are regarded as an embarrassment.

Diversity, inclusiveness, openness and tolerance are fundamental to what a free South Africa is about. It is deeply offensive for anybody to rubbish these values, especially if it is done by supremacists. South Africans, both black and white, fought long and hard for the achievement of a sovereign republic.

White and black anti-democrats make extensive use of social media, and the glib one-liners that this lends itself to. They rely heavily on podcasts — a medium where fact-checking does not apply, and in which the one-sided point of view is revered. In style, both resort to incendiary language, hyperbole and profanities.

White and black anti-democrats make extensive use of social media, and the glib one-liners that this lends itself to. They rely heavily on podcasts — a medium where fact-checking does not apply, and in which the one-sided point of view is revered. In style, both resort to incendiary language, hyperbole and profanities.

And both groups resort to ethnic mobilisation — a common refuge for scoundrels. Ethics, compassion and fundamental human rights are alien to their discourse.

They say the constitution is “woke”. By this they mean it prohibits — without equivocation — the promotion of racism; that it promotes tolerance and compassion; that it prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race or gender or religion or sexual orientation; and that it says a woman is first and foremost a full human being.

The anti-democrats say the constitution discriminates against white males and/or it promotes white genocide. This is nothing more than a desperate yearning for the days when every privilege was reserved by white men for white men.

Their real gripe is against the opening of the doors of learning, of the corridors of power, the professions and the economy to women and blacks.

The anti-democrats say the constitution is Eurocentric and un-African. An extension of this argument would be that the struggle for one person one vote is un-African.

That the struggle for a living wage is un-African.

That the long struggle of South African women for equal rights is un-African.

One is reminded of the claim by the apartheid oppressors that the freedom struggle for the overthrow of apartheid and equal rights was the work of Soviet-inspired communists — that these were really un-African ideals.

Now we are told that the equal rights and freedoms that form the backbone of the constitution are being imposed on us by “others”.

It is not uncommon for scoundrels and anti-democrats all over the world to rubbish the judges and courts that stop them from wrongdoing.

The anti-democrats say the constitution does not allow for the redistribution of land.

But the constitution not only allows for land redistribution, it requires the government to do so. There is no evidence that the slow pace of land redistribution is a result of the property clause in the Bill of Rights.

In any event, the fundamental essence of the constitution does not stand or fall by any particular formulation of the property clause. The constitution itself allows for an amendment to the property clause or any other clause, provided this is supported by an overwhelming majority of South Africans. There is no demonstrable evidence that the overwhelming majority are opposed to the property clause.

And, of course, equally strange is the false claim by white anti-democrats that the constitution allows for farms to be unjustly appropriated.

Then there is this constant false claim that there are serious “compromises” in the constitution — called “sunset clauses” — and that this is what is holding us back. There are none!

There were sunset clauses in terms of which the government of national unity operated from 1994 to 1996. The sun has long ago set on these clauses — they no longer exist!

The constitution serves as the mirror we use to judge ourselves. It is the standard we expect those in political and economic power to respect. It is the ultimate weapon of the poor, the weak and the disadvantaged. It is the window through which the nation looks at the future we want.

Valli Moosa, who delivered the Kader Asmal Lecture this week, was one of the architects of the constitution. He served as minister of constitutional development in President Nelson Mandela’s cabinet. This is an edited version of his speech