Famously embedded in South Africa’s constitutionalism at the dawn of our democracy, ubuntu captured the aspirational interconnectedness of a country torn apart by centuries of oppression, violence, and despair.  

With due apologies to Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene, we have within 26 years lapsed from our higher aspirations to lower levels of greed and self-fulfilment.

The late Chief Justice, Ismail Mahomed, in 1996 responded to the challenge of Azapo and Others to the amnesty clause of the TRC. He wrote of the obligation of all South Africans to cross the “historic bridge” celebrated in the postamble of the 1993 Interim Constitution. This, he said, needed to be undertaken not “with heavy, dragged steps delaying and impeding a rapid and enthusiastic transition to the new society at the end of the bridge”. Well, kyk hoe lyk dit nou? (Well, look at it now?)

Politicians squabble, promote self-interest and party-political gain. A corrupt state, in turn, tiptoes around allegations of corruption. Unions make partisan demands, civic groups promote sectoral interests that undermine the interests of equally important civic needs, and the upper echelons of the middle-class find new ways to benefit from the disarray.

Good competition and the importance of political disagreement, plus a measure of self-promotion is both expected and accepted, while the inclusivity of ubuntu idealism is off the radar screen of what is required for a minimally decent society to emerge.

The ubuntu challenge facing South Africa is both longitudinal, between government and citizens, as well as across the divides of race, culture, gender, and economic class. The increasing inability of government to govern thrusts citizens into the crisis we currently face, which we optimistically hope will be addressed in the 2024 elections.

Cross-societal reality is more difficult to fix. It involves the recognition and affirmation of the inherent dignity of all humanity. More than respect, which needs to be earned, dignity is an innate acknowledgement of the fundamental or natural rights of others — whether a person or group is rich, poor, male, female, young, old, pleasant, or downright obnoxious.

The notion of dignity necessitates the constitutional reference to realistic understanding and care epitomised in ubuntu philosophy, despite its historic forms of dark patriarchy, tribalism, and hierarchical preference.  Linking ubuntu to Western notions of individual rights persuades traditional sages and legal scholars at home and abroad to suggest that the South African Constitution is the most progressive constitution in the modern world.

The challenge is to move from words to praxis, which is where civil society fits into the picture. Democratic and libertarian-minded citizens too often find themselves juxtaposed to government. They withdraw into atomised, isolated bubbles, claiming their right to look after their personal needs. 

It is here that intermediary structures are required, which draw individuals into collectives that give expression to their needs and desires. These range from trade unions to religious institutions, social clubs, women’s associations, and youth clubs. The closer, more localised, and homogeneous these groups are the more cohesive and dynamic they become.

The problem is that democracy requires broader cross-purpose and heterogeneous support to create a government that meets individual and communal rights. 

This is where the flip-flopping of politics originates. Ubuntu government requires more than this. Monica Hunter Wilson, remembered as among South Africa’s great socio-anthropologists said “love [ubuntu] demands hard thinking and practical application”.  

This persuades people and groups in crucial situations to turn against some of their impulsive and natural urges. It requires a modicum of co-existence that offers survival, imagination, and application. DM

[hearken id=”daily-maverick/9472″]