Publication: Business Day Issued: Date: 2006-08-23 Reporter: Steven Friedman Reporter:

We Need to Put an End to the Politics of Smear and Plot

 

Publication 

Business Day
Date 2006-08-23

Reporter

 Steven Friedman

Web Link

www.businessday.co.za

 

Why must all our political disputes feature claims about personal behaviour or allegations that someone is plotting against someone else?

Reports about tensions in labour union Cosatu continue two long-standing trends in our politics. The one is that contests for office seem always to degenerate into claims that someone has been up to no good. It is claimed, but has been categorically denied, that general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi is being investigated by Cosatu for improper behaviour.

The other is that information reflects badly on political figures and organisations is said to stem from a conspiracy. Cosatu leaders insist that the allegations about Vavi as well as reports that he might face a contest for his post are planted by people in the African National Congress hostile to Cosatu’s support for Jacob Zuma.

Given the frequent use of smear in our politics, these claims cannot simply be dismissed, and so we have no way of knowing whether they are true.

This standard resort to smear and counter-smear is deeply damaging. First, it makes it very difficult to know if claims of wrongdoing are true ­ or a fabricated weapon in a political battle. This corrodes the fight for public morality because it enables anyone accused of corruption to claim they are being victimised ­ and makes it possible that they might be.

The fight against corruption should unite us across political boundaries. But this is impossible if, when public figures are accused, we do not know whether to blame them or their accusers.

Second, it erodes public trust. If political disputes always end in claims that someone is corrupt, it is no wonder government’s own macrosocial report recently told us that most citizens believe corruption in government has increased.

Third, it discredits the essence of democracy ­ debate and contest for office. If differences always dissolve into claims of corruption or conspiracy, political contest, whether over differing opinions or for office, is made to seem unhealthy.

Are there ways of countering this trend? One is to insist on higher standards from our media.

Much “investigative journalism” since 1994 is not a result of painstaking digging by reporters, but of writing down claims which some in politics or government office make about others.

In principle, that is not a problem. If people in or close to power did not pass on to the media “dirt” on others, we would not know about corruption. But a claim of wrongdoing against a politician or official is only the beginning of a story, not the story itself.

Only careful checking can tell whether a person is being smeared or has done something that ought to be exposed. While some journalists do check, many do not.

Similarly, political reportage may not do enough to check out what sources say about political disputes. It is self-evident that some people may wish to claim there are tensions in organisations when there are not.

So we need to know, as much as is possible, who is making the claim, and reporters need to check their information carefully. Often we are not told, and claims are not checked.

This is not a call for self-censorship or media control. It is, however, a plea for professional standards ­ such as checking allegations, giving some idea of the sources of reports and putting claims to people about whom they are written ­ which are essential if the public is to receive accurate information.

Of course, poor-quality reporting did not cause this problem. It merely makes it worse. So what does cause it?

The answer may be complicated. But one cause is that key political actors are still not eager to accept that differences about what should be done and who should do it are inevitable, whether in major organisations or society.

If we all agreed on everything, democracy would be unnecessary. But humans do not agree on everything ­ even if we belong to the same party or organisation. Democracy enables us to debate these differences and to choose between ideas and leaders. It is the healthiest system we know because it gives us an open way of challenging what we dislike and setting it right.

The alternative is simmering resentment, which may fester and become poisonous. Far less damage is done by airing differences democratically than by suppressing them. But we have little experience of settling them democratically, and so we see difference in our society and organisations as a threat to be denied, not a reality to be channelled into healthy paths ­ and we prefer to settle arguments through smear and conspiracy rather than debate and contest.

Healthy societies or organisations are those whose leaders are questioned and challenged in open contests. When we recognise that, we can begin to banish from our public life the politics of smear and plot that cause us so much harm.

Friedman is a research associate at the Institute for Democracy in SA, and is visiting professor of politics at Rhodes University.

With acknowledgements to Steven Friedman and Business Day.