'To live in the world of creation—to get into it and stay in it—to frequent it and haunt it—to think intently and fruitfully—to woo combinations and inspirations into being by a depth and continuity of attention and meditation—this is the only thing—and I neglect it, far and away too much; from indolence, from vagueness, from inattention, and from a strange nervous fear of letting myself go. If I can vanquish that nervousness, the world is mine.” Henry James
While watching Zohran Mamdani groove to JZ and Alicia Keys’s Empire State of Mind in a crowded New York City club, Barack Obama probably thought, “I was young and hip once”.
It was almost 17 years to the day that Obama had swept to victory with his “Yes, we can!” campaign which combined door-to-door, digital and online campaigning in an unprecedented way.
A youthful black president. A first. Bill Clinton was cool once too, playing the saxophone, dark glasses and all on the Arsenio Hall Show. Obama and Clinton; two very different men but both with an instinctive ability to connect with people.
Mamdani at 34 certainly knows how to connect with people and he understands the zeitgeist; the campaign was on the streets, in clubs and bars, hip-hop, rap and all. All-too-catchy and cool.
But, Mamdani also understood that affordability and the loneliness and marginalisation which modern culture has bestowed, particularly in a post-Covid world, remain serious pressure points. And he tapped into those with charm and a campaign which was deceptively low-key and casual but in fact very clever. Mamdani doesn’t quote Toni Morrison by accident.
Yet, in a jaded world he sold something that Obama and Clinton sold too – “the hopey, changey” stuff, as Obama’s staffers refer to it. Before that, there was also Clinton’s “I still believe in a place called Hope” (Arkansas). And Mamdani sold the rarest commodities these days. His campaign had what always eludes Donald Trump (and his supporters) – joy.
While Trump stews in the White House, fomenting hate and dispensing cruelty at a whim to serve his own narcissism, one can easily see why people would have wanted something different in last week’s election.
It goes without saying that Mamdani, mayor-elect not president-elect, has a mammoth task on his shoulders because cities are actually where the rubber hits the road. It is where all the failures of democracy converge (in South Africa, the ANC’s corruption and neglect have seen cities sink into tragic disrepair.)
But the modern methods of campaigning should also be met with a caveat. After all, Trump also continues to employ a kind of feral genius as he aggressively uses online platforms as a means of garnering support and then retaining the support of that base.
Henry James’s words, despite his living in another time, resonate when he speaks of what living in a “world of creation” requires of us and that “think(ing) intently and fruitfully” requires “depth and continuity of attention and meditation”, saving ourselves from “vagueness and inattention”.
This is an individual challenge but also a collective one and one especially for the modern politician. How does one tap into the zeitgeist without compromising the depth of thinking fruitfully? Because the danger inherent in the post-truth world is disengaging with the detail of the logical argument or the granularity of the policy choices required to lower levels of inequality or provide healthcare for all, for instance.
The world is a meme and our opinions have become almost meme-like. How else to understand the role of the ubiquitous “influencer”? This is not someone who knows terribly much, but rather someone who is able to “create or curate content” about themselves, a product or even a policy.
The lack of such depth and continuity of attention is a singular threat to democracy as complex arguments about immigration, inequality and climate change are all reduced to slogans which capture the imagination and more often than not speak to people’s worst fears and not their hopes. Our inability to hold two thoughts at once means that words often lack all weight and meaning.
What is said today, in the glut of news, on X or other forms of social media is forgotten tomorrow. The world has moved on to the next thing. In South Africa we have also seen this manifest often in our debates on land redistribution and also the National Health Insurance, both worthy policy choices in and of themselves but all too easily hijacked by the emotional slogan.
Our inability to parse the details meaningfully has led to chaotic land debates and redistribution (often subject to corrupt practices) and kite-flying as regards the implementation of the NHI, even as our public health system struggles with resource and other constraints.
And so, when universities in the UK start, as has recently been reported, teaching students “reading resilience” to get through long novels, we know that we are in deep trouble. Translating that to our own country with its abjectly poor education outcomes, one senses that democracy itself is in trouble. Our education system is failing successive generations with most Grade 4s and 6s unable to read for meaning.
In a post-1994 country based on a flawed notion of empowerment, education has often taken the back seat in a national discourse that prizes crass wealth accumulation above the emancipatory power of a decent education. This will continue to cost us dearly and there are no quick fixes now.
Then, too, we have the likes of Fikile Mbalula, who regularly commits to speeches and comments which are a veritable word salad. Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie speaks with a forked and a loose tongue. Many have lamented his holding office more times than should be necessary.
Lacking all thoughtfulness and completely unsuited to a Cabinet minister’s position, let alone this portfolio, we have elevated a man who uses words carelessly, gives them no weight and whose views are hate-filled and xenophobic. There are many other examples in our current South African political moment.
How do we then go below the surface level and think carefully about our society, holding leaders to account and ensuring the elusive “better life for all”, when the majority of our population has not been educated sufficiently to forge a way out of poverty and also to weigh the words of exploitative politicians and seek depth and context in everything?
Every generation’s inattention is a threat to democracy.
There are many parts of public life in South Africa that require our attention, yet we should not shirk our responsibility to hold the judiciary and the legal profession to account if we are serious about entrenching constitutionalism and the rule of law.
It is thus concerning that the past few weeks have not presented a good image of the judiciary or the legal profession.
A witness at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry into Criminality, Political Interference and Corruption in the Criminal Justice System alleged that the current acting judge president of the Gauteng High Court, Aubrey Ledwaba, was paid a bribe to grant bail to KT Molefe.
Molefe is facing five charges of murder, and was named by Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi as one of the alleged underground figures involved in capture of the criminal justice system.
It must be noted that Judge Ledwaba has denied the allegations, and there does not appear to be any evidence in the public domain at present to substantiate the allegation.
The October sitting of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) saw at least three instances of candidates, who, lest we forget, were being interviewed for appointment as judges, having questions about their ethics raised.
One candidate was taken to task for failing to disclose that he had previously been suspended from practising as a lawyer. Another did disclose a suspension but withdrew his candidacy during his interview after commissioners criticised him for appearing to downplay the severity of the issue. And a third candidate struggled to deal with what ought to have been straightforward questions about his nomination forms.
The JSC could not recommend any of these candidates for appointment. But the very appearance of practitioners with such question marks over their professional ethics is in itself of concern and has the effect of undermining trust in the justice system. Hardly a week goes by without media reports of misconduct or other ethical issues affecting legal practitioners, and the Legal Practice Council (LPC) appears to be struggling to hold delinquent practitioners to account.
This wave of negative publicity for the legal profession is especially concerning because it takes place against a backdrop where public trust and confidence in the rule of law and institutions that uphold it is precarious.
A recent Afrobarometer survey reported “deep frustration” with South Africa’s democratic system. Most strikingly, 49% of respondents expressed support for military rule, a 21% increase since the previous survey round in 2022.
What basis there is to imagine that this would improve any of the underlying concerns about the country’s governance systems is unclear, but that is a discussion for another time. What it does demonstrate quite clearly is that we have to be concerned about how our democratic institutions are functioning.
Recent research findings by the World Justice Project (WJP) suggest that these sentiments are consistent with a global pattern. The WJP finds an accelerating global decline in the rule of law, as authoritarianism rises in civil society space shrinks.
Law is at the centre of South Africa’s constitutional democracy. Our system grants our courts widespread powers to mediate disputes and to overturn decisions by democratically elected branches of government.
This is not in itself a bad idea, but it does mean that if our judges and lawyers are seen to fall short of core ethical and professional standards, public trust in the entire system of government is likely to be affected. It is therefore critical that serious consideration be given to addressing the type of issues we describe above.
There are several interventions which can help. The process of holding judges to account has long been criticised, and reforms to ensure that the process works more quickly and transparently will surely help to demonstrate that judges themselves are properly accountable. The outcome of the ongoing judicial conduct tribunal involving Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge will be a good litmus test.
The process of appointing judges can also be improved. While the JSC did not appoint the problematic candidates discussed above, there are ongoing concerns about the process by which candidates are shortlisted.
It cannot help public confidence in the justice system when people see candidates even being interviewed for judicial appointment despite serious concerns and shortcomings relating to their fitness for judicial office. Freedom Under Law is currently dealing with this issue in litigation.
Reform and strengthening of the JSC’s shortlisting procedures are sorely needed to improve public confidence in the judiciary.
Finally, the regulation of the legal profession has been a longstanding concern, with the LPC coming under intense scrutiny for how it has dealt with misconduct complaints against legal practitioners. If the LPC can improve its handling of complaints and ensure that the public is better protected from compromised legal practitioners, this will surely make a significant difference to the public perception of our justice system, and indeed the systems of government more generally. The stakes are very high. All around the world we see the devastating consequences when the legal system weakens and strongmen (and women) govern at a whim.
Will institutions like the judiciary, the JSC and the LPC now lead the way in making meaningful and necessary changes?
Again, our inattention to these matters poses an existential threat to our constitutional democracy. DM