Solving it the South African way

The furore that broke out last week over the cartoon by Zapiro in the Mail and Guardian, and the way it was resolved, has again illustrated why the South African society - despite the fact that it is one of the most diverse on the planet - is able to defuse differences as well as it does: when explosive situations arise, as they always will, we talk to one another. We show one another respect. Perhaps it is because we have no other choice, lest we will perish.

The Zapiro incident is but another example of many that go back to the time when the New South Africa was born in the early 1990s. At that time, there was the senseless assassination of communist leader Chris Hani, and recently there was the murder of right-wing icon, Eugene Terre’Blanche.

Every time, unlikely interlocutors would gather around a table to find ways to avoid potential disaster.

Even in the cases of internal strife within groups, dialogue is often the saving grace. A good recent example of this was how the South African Jewish community dealt with the threatening conflict surrounding the bar mitzvah of Judge Goldstone’s grandson in Johannesburg.

Some while ago, we carried a meta-review in the Intelligence Bulletin on Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God, which deals extensively with the relationship between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. As a passage or two from this monumental work perhaps best illustrate the underlying spirit that is alive and well in the South Africa of today:

Processing the Clash of Civilizations

"… surely, burning a country’s flag suggests that you see your relationship to it as antagonistic, as zero-sum – and that you’re unlikely to warm up to it anytime soon. And people so fervent as to get riled up over a cartoon don’t look like plausible negotiation partners either. In mustering antipathy towards these seemingly confirmed foes, the mind is working as designed.

"But is it working well? In antipathy towards Muslims who seem opposed to western values, if not the West itself, really in the interest of westerners? Maybe not, for two reasons.

"The first is fairly obvious. You can call it the Franklin Graham reason. Antipathy towards radical Muslims you see on TV could lead you to retaliate rhetorically in a broad-brush way and say things offensive to all Muslims. You might, for example, call Islam a “very evil and wicked religion.” This may alienate Muslims who aren’t yet cartoon protesters or flag burners, but would be more likely to burn a flag post-alienation.

"There’s a second reason why antipathy towards flag burners and cartoon protesters may make for bad strategy, and is less obvious.

"… if scriptural interpretation is obedient to facts on the ground – then flag burners and cartoon protesters who are acting under the influence of radical religious ideas came under that influence for a reason. Somewhere in the past are facts that account for their interpretation of their faith. And even if that interpretation has become basically unshakable – even if every flag burner and cartoon protester is beyond changing – there would still be virtue in finding out what those facts are. After all, keeping more moderate Muslims from joining the ranks of the exercised would be nice, and knowing what circumstances made the exercised Muslims exercised might aid that task. By the same token, it would be nice to understand why suicide bombers become suicide bombers – not so we could help them become moderates (good luck!), but so we could keep moderates from becoming them.

"… Hating protesters, flag burners, and even terrorists makes it harder to understand them well enough to keep others from joining their ranks." (Page 416)

Another extract

Under the heading The Boat, Wright writes:  "…the best way to Counter the visceral aversion to extending the moral imagination is through the viscera: fight fire with fire. Remember that what our true enemies – the terrorists themselves – dearly want is for most Muslims to harbor hatred and simmering grievance. So if addressing some of the enemy’s grievances means addressing grievances of Muslims in general, that may be the best revenge against the enemies. The basic ideas is vaguely reminiscent of the wisdom spread by the apostle Paul and derived from the Hebrew wisdom literature: 'If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat.' For by doing so you 'will heap coals of fire on their heads'." (Page 424).