Intolerance was on display in all its self-important grandeur last week.
I attended IOL’s public debate amongst regional political party leaders and wasn’t at all surprised by all the posturing going on.
This is after all the season of criticising and attacking opponents, while highlighting your own achievements and promises.
It’s a beauty pageant of sorts, with each contestant putting their very best foot forward and we get to judge and decide which one is the fairest of them all.
Everything is under scrutiny, from crime and unemployment, to land tenure, education and diverse representation.
Israel’s war on Palestine raised the temperature in the room significantly.
While most of the parties condemned Israel’s action outright, the DA and Action SA went for more diplomatic phrasing.
Several activists in the room insisted they use the word “genocide” and continued to shout Action SA’s speaker down when it was her turn.
In fact, one man right in the front took out his phone and focussed it on her afterwards, in a very intimidating way, which clearly made her uncomfortable.
Now whatever your views are on the matter, that is just not acceptable under any circumstances.
Drowning out someone because you don’t agree with them, deprives you and others of listening to their differing views, which is a right we all are meant to enjoy.
Does this mean that if your preferred party ever comes into power, you will trample on my right to hear certain views; and criminalise opposing opinions and imprison those who hold them? Because you certainly acted like it.
Some of us really wanted to hear that part of her party’s manifesto, interrogate her convictions and possibly change her mind intelligently.
Almost all the parties used the opportunity to attack the DA’s policies, making it into a performance review of sorts and forcing Alan Winde to respond as premier, instead of party representative.
While this may at first have appeared as an effective way to paint him into a corner and shut him up, it wasn’t an entirely smart tactic.
What it did was give Winde opportunities to both respond (mostly smartly), while also using valuable time to quickly highlight his party’s achievements.
He didn’t win every attack, but if points were to be awarded, he didn’t completely lose them either.
This was largely because most of the issues were being raised in an emotionally-charged way, while he responded with facts and figures, some of which were also disputed.
But then again, stats can be found to support any argument and as the joke goes: “Ninety percent of all figures are made up on the spot.”
This is also a perfect opportunity to remind voters of the important difference between the roles that certain individuals are playing.
Take Cyril Ramaphosa, for example. When he speaks as president of the country, his words carry much more weight, as it applies to all of us as citizens.
But as president of the ANC, he is speaking to the party faithful and hoping to court voters and new members.
It’s an important distinction that he himself must uphold, but that we all need to be aware of, especially during an election year.
It is a fine line that can easily be crossed when, say a party leader claims credit for something he achieved as an elected official with the support of others.
It’s the exact reason why some might want to deliberately blur that line and cause confusion.
As we get closer to election day, be aware that you will hear mostly from the party leader and less from the public servant, especially when that service has been non-existent or below par.
It reminded me again of my belief that equal education is the only thing that is going to save us as a country.
For all his awe, Nelson Mandela missed a beat by not rallying the country behind him, in pursuit of guaranteeing a future generation of patriotic problem solvers, compromisers and critical thinkers.
And the only way something like that is achievable, is through a plan that ensures all our children get the same education.
Just imagine we had immediately dismantled segregated education in 1994 and thrown all our resources into making sure that all our children received the exact same level of education.
Imagine if we had entered into a pact under Mandela, agreeing that all government spending would be directed towards education for at least one generation.
Keep in mind that we would’ve had to tolerate deteriorating government services and crumbling infrastructure, like roads and electricity supply for a while.
Now since this is already our reality, I’m pretty sure we would’ve been a lot more accepting of it, if there was a massive positive payoff at the end.
Let me paint the picture for you: Every child in the country is attending a diverse school that is highly resourced with everything they need, including well-paid, passionate teachers, sports equipment, extramural tutors and recreational toys.
A clean, safe and spacious facility with counsellors, computer rooms, devices, swimming pools, manicured lawns; the works.
Not a cent spared to ensure every child’s interest and aptitude is catered for and they are given the best possible chance of realising their potential.
Those with domestic challenges have the option to be picked up and dropped by a school bus, given three meals a day and the option to stay until their parents get home from work.
All at no cost to parents, whether they can afford R10 or R10 000 a month in school fees.
Then we send these kids onto their choice of free tertiary studies, with the same universal funding to their disposal.
We make sure they get leadership training, business and financial management training and hands-on career guidance.
When they are done, they are compelled to do community service for at least five years, where their academic knowledge is converted into experience.
And this is where society starts seeing the rewards.
Now you have a group of highly motivated young people, bursting at the seams with passion, ambition, gratitude, skills and most importantly, bright ideas to repair everything that has been sacrificed for them.
Of course this is an over-simplification and there would have been many hiccups along the way. But by and large, I am convinced a system like this would have put us on the right path to the greatness we dreamed of under Mandela.
Had we implemented a plan like this in 1994, that first group of highly-educated and highly-skilled graduates would be running our economy right now.
Imagine a generation of politically and socially brave, critical thinkers providing progressive solutions that our current crop of ageing, mostly illiterate leaders can’t even begin to imagine.
They would be making us proud with their inventiveness and their patriotic determination to work together towards the collective success of the entire country.
I see young graduates now with innovative ideas that they can’t get off the ground.
Imagine millions of them finding value in each other’s contributions and helping one another succeed for the benefit of us all.
It’s a utopian dream that we could’ve come close to.
Had these imaginary leaders existed and been part of last week’s debate, they would have known when to keep quiet and listen, to understand opposing logic.
They would’ve been equipped to raise their own argument, instead of raising their voice.
What a country that would have been. And can still be.
dailyvoice@inl.co.za