E.TV’s 3rd Degree show and post debate on 3rd Degree Plus on 25th May 2010 centred around racism and left one deeply saddened at the entrenched racism in our society. The show covered a number of incidents from the effects of the AWB Leader Eugene Terre’blanche murder, to the both previous and recent incidents at the University of the Free State (UFS). It is the ethnic nationalism which was witnessed on the show that left one with the greatest lesson of them all: We must rid our society of ethnic nationalism and promote unity.

In one clip during the show, host Debora Patta at the University of the Free State proceeds to question the campus Freedom Front Plus (FF+) Youth Leader about the nature of racism on campus, and further goes on to accuse her of being a racist. The young female leader turns to tears as she tries to explain her “nonracist” character. But what was really interesting is her tendency to promote ethnic nationalism through her party, and left me unable to refrain from addressing this issue for once and for all.

What the FF+ Youth Leader fails to understand is that she belongs to an ethnic nationalist party whose policy is based on the development of a separate homeland to preserve that ethnicity. The FF+ is no less an ethnic nationalist party than the AWB because they both stand to preserve their ethnicity using the smokescreen of culture maximisation as has been seen by both AWB Secretary-General Andre Visagie, and FF+ Leader Pieter Mulder in many instances. Ethnic nationalism places the interests of one group of people over that of the rest of the populace. That is why it breeds racism, and causes divisions. It is the root cause of all the suffering in our history, and that in many parts of the world.

South Africa today must find every means to reject ethnic nationalism and promote unity. This immediately starts with rejecting organisations which promote it. The FF+ and AWB are some of the most forthright ethnic nationalist parties today. The IFP, perhaps on paper does not promote ethnic nationalism, but it certainly cannot be said to be a party accommodative of all people, and leaves one to wonder whether they have a single Xhosa within their senior party ranks considering the social divide amongst Xhosas and Zulus.

The South African electorate needs to reject all these parties as an act against ethnic nationalism. The African National Congress (ANC) is also a party which does not promote unity amongst people adequately. The ANC promotes racial representation within its party and government in an attempt to correct the injustice of the past. The idea that only blacks can represent blacks, and only whites can represent whites et cetera. This is the same approach favoured by Verwoerd in his day and the ANC today, and we must reject it. We must always remain vigilant that, in our attempts to address the legacy of the past, we don’t fall into the trap of seeing people simply as representatives of racial groups. This is precisely what we need to leave behind in our country. Racial representation or even ethnic representation serves more as a barrier to unity than a bridge because it instils a sense of racial ethnic responsibility to promote one’s identity to that group and hence becomes another form of ethnic nationalism.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) on the other hand, is the only party which is truly becoming a party for all. Unlike the ANC, the DA does not believe in groups of people, but in individuals, and groups of individuals. We believe that all individuals are equal both in worth and dignity. The DA is a party which is for blacks, whites, Indians and coloureds. It is for Zulus, Xhosas, Sotho’s, Tswana’s, Afrikaners, Swati’s, Ndebele’s, Venda’s et cetera. The DA is a national entity which swings far beyond the narrow objects of ethnic nationalism, to a party which promotes a single nation. That is why the DA promotes the slogan of “One Nation, One Future”. It is the only party which has earned that right to do so.

The DA believes strongly in the value of diversity and sharing if we are to build a united South Africa. During apartheid, the government refused to share South Africa with all whom resided in it and sought to eliminate diversity through separate development. In the DA we reject this, and promote entirely the opposite. Diversity in comparison to racial ethnic representation is about bringing in decision-making people of wide-ranging experiences and perspectives, without assuming that people can only be represented by others of the same colour or gender.

Ethnic nationalism is an implicit threat to driving South Africa into a passage of continued racism, and plants the seeds of division which we once before sought strongly to remove. We must bring back that spirit by rejecting ethnic nationalism in all forms, and promoting diversity and sharing. The AWB, FF+, and ANC do not stand for these ideals. Only the DA does.

Hlanganani Gumbi is provincial youth chairperson of the Eastern Cape DA.

“‘Unity in diversity’ is a myth; a sham exposed by the simple facts of social psychology.”
(Heywood, 1997, 2007)

Cultural diversity, or multiculturalism in a state, “implies a positive endorsement of communal diversity, based either on the right of different cultural groups to respect and recognition” (Heywood, 1997, 2007:215). Cultural diversity is an ideological principle because it is typically the ideal or perfectionist state of affairs in which numerous cultural groups and identities peacefully co-exist (Heywood, 1997, 2007:215). While the ideal of cultural diversity would be a fastidious situation in which to exist, there are numerous examples of the failures that arise from multiculturalism, or where numerous cultures exist aside each other.

The “affirmation of one’s ethnic peculiarity” is a fundamental part of a strong identity to which one subscribes (Caws, 376). In light of this statement, culture is an essential part of existence because it forms part of one’s identity and person. Therefore, people have a natural intent and desire to prove and affirm their identity and to promote their culture, as Caws proposes ( p376). Subsequently, on a large scale, multiculturalism will not allow for individual freedom and therefore must be discouraged, because the dominant cultural group will invariably be the most successful in promoting their own set of interests and ideals, as that group will be the most able to achieve this (Berlant, Warner, 112).

Multiculturalism, which is gained from cultural diversity within a country or state, “seeks to link together identity struggles with a common rhetoric of difference and resistance” (Chicago Cultural Studies Group, 114). This concept remains as the ideological form of the concept, as this situation would be idyllic should it actually happen. However, time and time again, the co-existence of more than one cultural group has proven to be perilous (Heywood, 1997, 2007:215). In his critique of multiculturalism, Heywood states that multicultural societies are “inherently fractured, conflict-ridden and unstable societies” (1997, 2007:218), and that countries in which various cultures reside are typically prone to violence and cultural hostility as each culture endeavours to define and protect themselves. Examples of such are South Africa, Rwanda, Israel and Palestine, Germany and Turkey, France (and its immigrants), Britain (and its immigrants), and the devastation that is Darfur and its ‘ethnic cleansing;’ an example at its best of the dominant culture exercising its dominance.

South Africa is a brilliant example of multiculturalism: With eleven official languages and over fifteen cultures, each predominantly defined by a different language, South Africa is ‘diversity-101.’ The country’s motto, which lies beneath the coat of arms, states “diverse people unite” and can also mean “unity in diversity.” However, is there really unity in South Africa? Conflict remains to be seen taking place between different ethnic groups, as witnessed in the 2008 ‘xenophobic attacks’ in which inter-cultural violence took place. How can a nation feel united when there are eleven languages to be communicated in, or rather to be used to separate one from one’s neighbour? Additionally, the different ethnic groups further separate themselves politically, as they each vote for a party that represents their own people, as demonstrated in the outcome of the 2009 election, whereby each province showed favour towards a party that was run by members of their own group of people. As suggested by Heywood (1997, 2007:218), emphasis needs to be placed on the assimilation of all groups into one national identity, rather than the fostering of “peculiarist identities” that “threaten political instability, possibly threatening social breakdown and violence” (Heywood, 1997, 2007:217).

Multiculturalism is quite simply a form of collectivism, which endangers individual freedom as the rights of the individual are subordinate to those of the dominant social group (Heywood, 1997, 2007: 217). Typically, minorities that have not assimilated into dominant culture have been economically and socially disadvantaged due to cultural differences to the dominant culture (Caws, 373). In light of these points, it can be said that in order for a nation to function stably and for its people to be served effectively, the nation must be united. This will be achieved when the nation is monocultured, as Heywood suggests (1997, 2007:448), as this is the point at which discrimination and inter-cultural hostility will not take place, as all members of the nation share the same culture, or body of “beliefs, attitudes and values” (Heywood, 1997, 2007:448).

It has become clear from the evidence supplied that where there is cultural difference or ‘diversity,’ there is habitually a case for hostility or political instability. Heywood poses the question that is “how is political stability to be maintained in societies in which the monocultural bonds of political nationalism have been fatally undermined [by the promotion of multi-culture]?” (1997, 2007:215). The question is valid, because there cannot be “togetherness” or political stability where there is difference and multiplicity (Heywood, 1997, 2007: 215). Take South Africa and its eleven official languages for example (again), which has a seemingly stable political condition, but an extremely fragile inter-socio/inter-cultural relationship, as demonstrated by the recent xenophobic violence.

It must be noted that humans are “limited and dependant creatures, naturally drawn to others similar to themselves, who therefore fear or distrust people who are in some way different” (Heywood, 1997, 2007: 218). Therefore, in conclusion, it is clear that cultural diversity needs to be rejected and societies need to be protected against it. In nations where numerous cultures exist, all cultures must be assimilated into one, so that the nation will have true solidarity.

Graham Robert Pote is a Politics, Film, and Law student at the University of Cape Town.