Wiseman Zondi

In recent years, there has been a surge in populist and nationalist politicians coming into power throughout the globe. Most of these politicians are decidedly iliberal, so much so that the very concept of liberal democracy has been called into sharp critique for allowing demagogues to gain political power. In particular, the liberal movement – from its larger vision to its implementation of said vision – has been criticised from various political commentators and analysts. There are various interpretations of the term “liberal movement”, but “any institution that advocates for political and individual freedom for all members of society” will suffice.

There are certain terms used in popular parlance that have stymied the liberal movement over the past few years. ‘Identity politics’ is one of those terms. While others see the shift towards inclusiveness as a positive one, others within the movement feel that focusing on various identities excludes those who are not mentioned. In their words, this sends them towards the right – towards authoritarianism and social conservatism. Hence, it is seen to be self-defeating to focus on identities as an integral part of politics. It is then wiser to focus on an encompassing movement that values everyone.

On the face of it, this seems engaging and thoughtful. After all, it is more advantageous to have “the left” as a unified force than a cast of members, all competing for a chance to be heard. However, there are problems with this mindset – namely, that identity politics is poison for the liberal movement, rather than a device meant to strengthen the long-term durability of the movement.

Political scientist (and self-professed liberal) Mark Lilla, in his book The Once and Future Liberal, critiques identity politics in this way: “The paradox of identity liberalism is that it paralyzes the capacity to think and act in a way that would actually accomplish the things it professes to want. It is mesmerized by symbols: achieving superficial diversity in organizations, retelling history to focus on marginal and often minuscule groups, concocting inoffensive euphemisms to describe social reality, protecting young ears and eyes already accustomed to slasher films from any disturbing encounter with alternative viewpoints.”

It is interesting that Lilla begins his critique by dismissing the intellectual value of identity politics, then using examples that do no justice to the core function of identity politics as an obvious strawman fallacy. It suggests something about the writer: that he does not see group identities influencing society as a worthwhile act.

His argument is handled on the very same premise that libertarians and right-wing people use in their critiques against the left – individual good, collective bad. If enough individuals just do not get offended by bigotry, if enough individuals did not place their identities into a group template, then there would be “unity in diversity”, as our Coat of Arms proudly attests to. Some would even go as far as to say that the right seems to embody liberal ideals better than the left itself, because of the right’s general disinterest in the issues plaguing minorities.

The very idea that there is more that unites us than divides us is fanciful. I’d love to live in such a world. I would love to live in a world that treats minorities with respect and dignity – that sees discrimination and bigotry as rare occurrences rather than the stark reality of billions of minorities worldwide. In short, I would love to live in a Rainbow Nation. In fact, a Rainbow World. But that’s not our reality.

The truth is that what I refer to as the Kumbaya Mentality, however desirable in the long-term, caused several forms of friction in the world. Liberalism as seen purely through the lens of the Kumbaya Mentality attempts to look at interpersonal interactions between a tiny subset of individuals (there not being explicit segregation between people of differing racial groups) as proof of a larger “truth” about society, even when that truth is more nuanced than this.

Individuals do not live separately from groups. Individuals are groups. Every individual – no matter how liberal – is part of a social group of some sort, be it a family, a residential area, or an educational institution. The widespread perception of their social group reflects on them, and if significant, might even grant or deny them opportunities. This has nothing to do with their individual attributes, and everything to do with their membership in said group.

When I hear arguments that Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) is racist, it is enough to make me roll my eyes. Not just because there is no perceived racial superiority underlying the policy, but because the intention of the policy is to empower groups that were historically disadvantaged, and who still suffer the effects of such disadvantage due to the very nature of colonialism and apartheid. Not all racial groups fit into this criterion. To treat all racial groups equally in this respect, and ignoring the racial context that led to the imbalance to begin with, is the true act of racism.

Instead we have a liberal movement that pretends to fulfill the demands of minorities, without understanding the motives behind the minorities’ demands.

Case in point: are there more black students than white ones at a historically white university? That’s transformation! Can LGBTQ+ persons get married? That’s inclusion!

This is the true symbolism being offered to marginalised groups in the world today – empty landmark achievements that do not address the fundamental conditions that led to the marginalisation in the first place. And so if the groups in question seek to assert themselves in the face of apathy, so that the individuals within these groups may gain equal opportunities, how can that signal the end of the liberal movement, rather than a call for introspection by the powers-that-be?

If “the left” had been concerned with minority issues to the extent that they claim they have been, then there would be no need for massive pushbacks against the inadequacies of the larger establishment. If the LGBTQ+ community had been truly acknowledged, there would not be anger over a global lack of representation. If African-Americans were not being brutally killed by American police, there would be no Black Lives Matter.
That these issues exist in and of itself should be a waking call to those who say identity politics is the biggest problem facing the liberal movement. The actual reason for the annihilation of the left is their dismissal of real concerns by marginalised communities, and their subsequent conflict over the usefulness of identity politics to fill that gap.

It is common for a community that does not feel acknowledged to form interest groups and attempt to either influence the existing structure to better benefit them, or to deconstruct the structure altogether. The remedial work on the part of the liberal movement is to welcome the plurality of perspectives within their camp, and form a shared vision around these perspectives. However, this goal must be steered by the realities of the movement on the ground.

People are angry. People are dissatisfied. People are fed up. This frustration is created not just by the rise of life-threatening nationalism, but by the blame imposed upon them by their fellow liberals for this rise. If their concerns are not promptly responded to, they will further revolt against a movement that seems to only pay lip-service to their concerns, but rallies against significant changes within its doors.

Abandoning the Kumbaya Mentality for a more lasting solution that fully takes history, group psychology, and basic organisational tools into account will be the re-invigoration of liberal movements across the world. Only such a movement can move from ideal to reality – a movement that does not disregard identity politics, but uses the shared discontent as an impetus to bring about freedom for all members of society.