Zuma's a cultural coward - Thought Leader

By Michael Baillie

“Zuma’s conduct is un-African”. Not my words, but those of an “expert” as quoted in a news article I read recently. But what on earth does it mean?

On face value it could mean that Zuma’s actions were not African in nature, that in someway they were not representative of what it is to be African. This particular expert must have consulted a code of African-ness, finding that Zuma’s actions were not listed. What a wondrous list it must be and just imagine how many disputes it’ll clear up in the future. I wonder who drew it up and what criteria were used. Also, what edition of the list did he consult?

What a load of nonsense! The idea of single “African-ness”, and being able to measure how African one’s actions are is just nonsense. And the fact that an expert is needed in these matters is just further indication of how problematic the whole idea is. Culture changes constantly and it is contextually specific. It does not simply hover above a society, a yard stick to be used from time to time. Just as culture influences the way people behave, so those very same people are also in the process of shaping a particular culture. It does not exist as something to be “applied” or “consulted”. So it seems nonsensical to refer to culture as a static reference that can be used by “experts” before passing judgement.

Secondly the statement could mean that since Zuma’s conduct is “un-African”, it is less acceptable than if it had been more “African”. It implies that if his actions had been “African”, they would be beyond reproach, excusable and perhaps even condoned.

Again, what rubbish!

The fact that we exist in a multicultural society does not mean that particular actions are excusable simply because they are cultural. In the first place I would love someone to define what makes one action cultural and another not. Is there a check list and are some actions and practices more cultural than others? Or is it perhaps that an action becomes cultural when it attracts criticism. In that case Malema and Zuma must be the custodians for all things cultural.

No, the issue is that cultural, or not, Zuma’s actions took place in a particular time and place. And in this space (a) having unprotected sex with multiple partners is irresponsible, and (b) having 20 children shows a complete disregard for ecological issues. Regardless of whether his actions had been cultural or not, being the president of South Africa and having unprotected sex is not acceptable because of the messages it sends out. Cultural actions are not miraculously sucked out of the context in which they occurred and their consequences are not somehow muffled because they have been cushioned in the rhetoric of culture and multiculturalism.

Living in a multicultural society does not mean we should simply turn a blind eye every time something is labelled as a cultural practice. That isn’t cultural sensitivity, it’s cultural tyranny. Pulling the culture card functions in exactly the same way as the race card does. It’s a way of passing the buck, of saying “I can’t help what I do, it’s my culture”. It’s a coward’s way of sidestepping the issue by making the critic seem backward and out-of-touch, rather than actually engaging with their arguments.

Michael Baillie (25) is a recent graduate working his first job in the media industry. He is extremely passionate about South Africa but very frustrated with the government and apparent lack of political leadership in the country.