STEVEN FRIEDMAN: Why are we being laughed off for not accepting claims about our democracy?
The difference between now and apartheid is democratic rules stop state bullies from doing as they please, which protects not only Jacques Pauw’s freedom of speech but everyone else’s too
Even nutters and certifiably blind tadpoles may have something useful to add to the national debate. Which is why it would be better to debate those who disagree with the current consensus than to dismiss them. We are in another of those moments in which we are all expected to think and speak in unison. This time the cause is the attempt by the security establishment to silence Jacques Pauw’s book on Jacob Zuma by threatening to take him to court. Anyone who values freedom can agree that the government has no business trying to suppress books. But we are also being told to accept claims about our democracy that are open to serious question — and we are dismissed as wastes of space if we do not. The first claim we are all expected to buy into is that this is a dire threat to democracy — one public figure claimed it mimicked the worst excesses of apartheid.But, as violations of democracy go in this country, the threat to Pauw’s book ranks pretty low. As this is written, the chief effe...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.