Liberalism Vs. Marxism-Leninism and the Future of Education in South Africa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 4 No 3 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy September 2013 Liberalism vs. Marxism-Leninism and the Future of Education in South Africa Moeketsi Letseka College of Education, University of South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Doi:10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n3p67 Abstract This paper debates the ideological tension in South Africa between, one the one hand, liberalism, and, on the one hand both the radical Africanist Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) of the 1970s, and the hard-line Marxism-Leninism inclined South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). The paper’s central argument is, on the one hand, that the BCM’s criticisms of liberalism were specific to South Africa’s white liberals and to specific historical moment on the 1970s. On the other hand the SACP and COSATU’s hard-line Marxism-Leninism is pitted against the African National Congress’s (ANC), which is more community oriented and less attuned to the aspirations of organised labour like its partners. And given that the ANC is in the majority and has more or less hegemonised the alliance the threat to liberalism posed by both the radical Africanist BCM and the hard-line Marxism-Leninism of both the SACP and COSATU has been nullified. It can therefore be reasonably argued that South Africa’s project of a liberal conception of education will be sustained in compliance with the country’s liberal and egalitarian Constitution. Keywords: South Africa, liberalism, Liberal education, Marxism-Leninism, South African Communist Party, Congress of South African Trade Unions, Black Consciousness Movement. 1. Introduction From time immemorial liberalism has either been celebrated and defended (Gaus, 2000; Gutmann, 1985, Rawls, 1999), or contested (Abbey, 2005; Abbey, 2004; Cobbah, 1987; Gray, 1978), scoffed at and reviled (Biko, 2005; Makgoba, 1998; Ake, 1993). For instance, on the one hand Gaus (2000:180) posits that “the twentieth century was a surprisingly liberal century ….Consensus on the pre-eminence of the liberal ideals of liberty and markets appears well-nigh universal”. He argues that by the close of the twentieth century “liberalism has apparently defeated, or has certainly got the upper hand on, its traditional rivals” (Gaus, 2000:195). While Gutmann (1985:310) mounts a defence against claims that “liberal politics is philosophically indefensible”. That there is such a wide diversity of views on liberalism is not unusual. Evans (1999:117) contends that “being aware of the great diversity within the liberal tradition, no sensible liberal would be prepared to offer a substantial and rigidly specified characterisation of that which makes a doctrine ‘liberal”. In the same vein Holmes (1995:13) observes that “the political theorists who have most cogently articulated and defended liberal aspirations - Milton, Spinoza, Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Voltaire, Beccaria, Blackstone, Smith, Kant, Bentham, Madison, Hamilton, Constant, Tocqueville, and J. S. Mill - were deeply immersed in contemporary controversies. Each spent his life responding to local challenges, defending specific reforms, struggling with circumscribed problems”. Holmes argues that “their epistemologies and metaphysical beliefs were sometimes diametrically opposed to each other’s. They also deviated from one another on a wide range of policy questions”. As a result “none can be fully understood if plucked ahistorically from his political and intellectual context and forced to march in a canonical parade of liberal greats”. Like their predecessors above, contemporary political theorists are also grappling with controversies and contestations around various conceptions and articulations of liberalism (Galston, 2005, 1991; Rawls, 1999, 1996; Waldron, 1987; Enslin, 1986; Berlin, 1969). It is now clear that even though liberalism does not feature in William B. Gallie’s (1956) list of “essentially contested concept” the bottom line is that liberalism is not only a contested concept (Abbey, 2005; Gray, 1978), but it is also a ‘complex’ concept (Simhony, 2003). Some commentators have even made reference to “a family of liberalisms” (Simhony, 2003:283), “a multitude of liberalisms” (McKay, 2000:627), as well as to “many liberalisms” (Rawls, 1996:223) as evidence of the proliferation of the term. These varieties only go on to underscore the complex and contested nature of liberalism as a social science concept. In 1996 South Africa adopted a Constitution that has been described as “a model liberal democratic constitution that has few peers in the world community” (Jordan, 1996); that bears “the hallmarks of liberal democracy” (Enslin and 67 ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 4 No 3 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy September 2013 Horsthemke, 2004:552; Dugard, 1998:23), and “is widely hailed as liberal and egalitarian” (Deveaux, 2003:162), because “it values human dignity and frames human rights at its heart” (Robinson, 2012:2). South Africa’s ruling tripartite alliance of the African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party (SACP), and the Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) is an alliance of fascinating dynamics. The SACP and COSATU are strongly influenced by, and commit to framing their political direction by the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Under normal circumstances this radical Marxist-Leninist leaning of the ruling alliance’s partners would be deemed incompatible with South Africa’s much vaunted liberal aspirations. When we consider that the General Secretary of the SACP is South Africa’s current minister of the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), the challenges of theorising South Africa’s political landscape and education become even more porous. Does this imply a radical policy shift towards a Marxist-Leninist conception of education in South Africa? Of course such a question would be dismissed as counter revolutionary capitalist rhetoric in countries such as China or the Soviet Union where the General Secretary of the Communist Party is the all-powerful party leader who is well placed to influence educational policy to fit in with the party’s Marxist-Leninist ideology. But what are the implications of this scenario for an emergent liberal democracy like South Africa? I shall argue that this scenario does not pertain to South Africa for two crucial reasons. First, the ANC, which is in the majority, has hegemonised the alliance. And second, the ANC is more community oriented and less attuned to the aspirations of organised labour like its partners. This paper is structured around five sections. I start by sketching what liberals generally value, and about which most liberal democracies will promulgate laws to ensure that such values are promoted, defended and sustained. Second, I explore the view that liberalism is not only a ‘complex’ social science concept, but that it also falls under the category of those concepts that have been described as ‘essentially contested’. Third, I draw on the ‘complex’ and ‘contested’ nature of liberalism to unpack the liberal tradition in South Africa. It shall become clear from this unpacking that South Africa’s liberal tradition has its own context-specific historical nuances that make it even more fascinating to engage and analyse. In the fourth section I tease out the influence of Marxism-Leninism among two members of South Africa’s majority ruling tripartite alliance that is made up of the ANC, the SACP, and COSATU, and speculate on the implications of this influence on South Africa’s liberal aspirations. The pertinence of this speculation cannot be overemphasised given that South Africa boasts of a Constitution that is widely regarded as liberal and egalitarian. In the fifth and final section I offer some concluding remarks. Basic Principles that Liberals Value Enslin (1984:3) posits that “the necessary and most fundamental formal characteristic of liberal ideas is that they defend the principle of liberty or freedom”. Waldron (1987:130) elaborate: “liberty is a concept which captures what is distinctive and important in human agency as such and in the untrammelled exercise of powers of individual deliberation, choice, and the intentional initiation of action”. Historically liberal political philosophy has been associated with the Enlightenment. For Waldron (1987:134), “the relationship between liberal thought and the legacy of the Enlightenment cannot be stressed too strongly. The Enlightenment was characterised by a burgeoning confidence in the human ability to make sense of the world, to grasp its regularities and fundamental principles, to predict its future, and to manipulate its powers for the benefit of mankind”. Waldron contends that “after millennia of ignorance, terror, and superstition, cowering before forces it could not understand nor control, mankind faced the prospect of being able at last to build a human world in which it might feel safely and securely at home”. Gray (1995:17) concurs: “throughout the latter half of the eighteenth century, the history of liberalism in continental Europe and the spread of the Enlightenment must be regarded as aspects of one and the same current of thought and practice”. For Gray (1995:71-72), “the sine qua non of the liberal state in all its varieties is that governmental power and authority be limited by a system of constitutional rules and practices in which individual liberty and the equality