Publications
Partners
Cc Federal Council Delegates
The DA remains the only party in South African politics which is genuinely striving to be a home for all South Africans.
Not only are our electoral efforts geared towards winning votes from every segment of the population, but so too are our political and professional structures seeking to have the rich diversity of South Africa’s talent and tapestry to influence our decision making.
Every day, this is the organisation we work to create and every time we fall short, we must intensify our efforts.
Fast forward to the DA Federal Congress 2018. You have lambasted a motion popularly supported by DA leader Mmusi Maimane in his efforts to build a party that truly champions diversity.
There is no doubt that this motion will be supported by a large group of people in the party, one that I would not refer to as a “black caucus” or any other narrative which seeks to discredit individuals negatively before they have even proposed an argument.
Regardless of the media referring to them as that, we know the toxicity of that label, something our white counterparts do not have to suffer the indignity of being labelled.
I believe that there are groups of individuals in the party, who have common thought and ideas on varied issues at different times– these are free thinking individuals making informed choices about the future of the DA and the country.
I agree that we do not believe in the ANC’s determination that ‘diversity’ must mean ‘racial representivity’.
In fact during former strategist Ryan Coetzee’s speech titled “Building a party for All” to the October 2006 Federal Council, made it abundantly clear that diversity is about bringing into decision making people of wide ranging experiences and backgrounds without assuming that people can only be represented by others of the same colour and gender.
He further went on to say, “Anyone, of any colour, should be able to hold any position.
"But when one looks at the colour of our leadership and public representatives overall, then the diversity of South Africa should be on display.”
I would venture into arguing that all too often, the diversity of South Africa is not on display in too many areas of our party nor do we bring into decision making people of wide ranging experiences.
This not only becomes an affront to many people left out, but further makes it questionable to what extent do we take diversity seriously.
This brings me to ask the question, does it make us angry in the DA if in a process to choose our parliamentary public representatives, which includes hundreds of thousands of members, newspaper adverts across the country and sophisticated communication networks, that the outcome is a parliamentary caucus most would argue is not diverse.
That in 2016 we just recently celebrated our first black female executive director in the party – wait – first black executive director ever.
That the professional leadership of our party surely didn’t bring diverse backgrounds into decision making nor reflect the diversity of South Africa when the national campaigns team in the last election didn’t have a single black Africa or Indian person in the team.
Just recently, in my very own home city, of the eleven elected caucus exco members of eThekwini, not a single one is black. And so the trend continues, not only on race but very often even with gender.
Sadly, the very defence made, all too often is what is used to justify the status quo and our outcomes.
It is then often closed off with the argument that the team selected is “fit for purpose” and that, “he is best for the job”.
An often patronising response to the actual worst form of “group think”.
The kind of unforeseen “group think” which presumes that systems, structures and peoples inherent biases which produces the same results in often urban “white males” in nearly every eventuality regardless of the changing environment is a natural element of hard work and using ones opportunities.
To believe this would be to shatter the feelings and discard the talents of so many who have put themselves forward and have been worthy too.
Building a party for all cannot be an academic exercise, with a theoretical argument, and divorced of the real emotional elements of the true project we are trying to build by ignoring the real consequences of our organisation.
Building a party for all means that all of South Africa’s people can feel at home in the DA, secure that we will protect and defend everyone’s rights and their opportunities in the DA.
It means we care about the fact that a significant portion of the DA does not feel like that have a fair opportunity to make it in the party, and that it makes us angry as a party that it can be normalised for our own outcomes to reinforce false narratives around certain peoples value and potential.
Without dragging this debate any further as I believe it has the potential to spill over negatively into the public domain, I believe it is important to note that when this debate is contested on the congress floor, there is not a single branch delegate from Soweto or even uMkhanyakude or Zululand in the audience.
Some of the largest, almost exclusively black townships and areas in the country, with growing branch’s and many councillors. It was our organisational arrangement that produced this result out of two thousand possible delegates.
Does this make us angry? Certainly me.
On this one, I am with Mmusi.
We must recommit our organisation to truly embracing diversity.
In a diverse organisation, there is room for everyone to be at home and reach their potential.
It does not exclude anyone, it brings people on board.
It is one strength that we must continue to build on.
