Search

The past two decades are characterised by a growing radicalization of politics and a resurgence of ideologies. This inevitably leads to a disregard for the plurality and multifariousness of people(s), thereby posing a serious threat to democracy. Politics (and the concept of "democracy") is reduced to a post-colonial struggle against racism and discrimination, against the exclusion of the "other", which allegedly lies at the bottom of all that is bad and evil in society. Politics basically becomes synonymous with the exclusion of all exclusions. The only exclusion which is acceptable and indeed propagated in terms of this logic, is the exclusion of those who exclude, i.e. all those who want to maintain borders. In the name of "liberation" and "progressiveness" a witch hunt is launched against those who insist on recognition of the plurality/diversity of communities. All those who do not succumb to "political correctness", and who are not willing to subject themselves to the transformation agenda of the radicals, are relentlessly hounded down, stigmatised and persecuted. They are seen as stumbling blocks in the march toward a blissful future for mankind. As such they are branded as "enemies of the people", reactionaries, remnants of a bygone era who should best be eliminated. Basically, all ideologies and forms of radical politics tend to neglect, or even to completely negate concrete realities, facts and events in favour of a simplistic moral scheme of judgment, i.e. a dichotomous scheme of arbitrating between good and evil: "tolerance" versus "stigmatising", "racism" versus "anti-racism", "solidarity" versus "segregation", "universality" versus "particularity/ethnocentrism", "oppressors" over against the "oppressed". The asymmetric moral coding of differences and conflicts between groups of people poses a serious threat to the very sphere in which they were traditionally dealt with and settled as best as possible: the political sphere where it is possible to have political friends and enemies, wars, but also to reach a compromise and a peace accord. Radical politics wants to make an end to politics as the art of what is possible, which takes into consideration things such as objectively given borders, historically grown relationships, as well as national and local peculiarities. By rejecting politics in this traditional sense, the radicals opt for a kind of politics as uncompromising and ruthless execution of a task, a mission, a universal destiny. Thus they forget that the worst forms of violence do not result from the tension and conflict between people(s), but rather from the firm belief that one can once and for all liberate them from violence in a state of universal brotherhood. According to Alain Finkielkraut, following the German political thinker Carl Schmitt, this amounts to a far reaching moralisation of politics, which in turn can lead to the end of the political. Indeed, the political distinction friend/enemy is replaced by the distinction between the absolutely good versus the demonic "enemy of the people". When that happens, there is nothing further to discuss or negotiate. The figure of the enemy is replaced by and degraded to the figure of the inhuman, a monster that must be eradicated once and for all. The ideology of anti-racism has been gaining ground over the past few decades among Western liberal democracies. Confronted by the global phenomenon of mass immigration, saddled with feelings of guilt due to their colonial past, and profoundly impressed by the terrifying impact of Nazism and fascism, the Western nations have seemingly become soft targets or even a fertile breeding-ground for the ideology of anti-racism. Several factors have contributed to this situation. I briefly discuss a few of these factors, such as 1) the tendency to mistake pity or compassion for respect, resulting in double standards and second-class citizenship, both of which are irreconcilable with a genuine democracy; 2) a distorted sense of equality; 3) a one-sided emphasis on tolerance; and 4) an obsession with racism and fear of racial conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the justification for the provision of diversity against the background of a unified South African education system. It is argued that ample provision for diversity is made in various international declarations - the majority of which were ratified by South Africa. In addition, the South African Constitution requires that diversity be accommodated and promoted, not only in civil life but also in education. Directives and other provisions in the National Education Policy Act of 1996 not only promote a unitary education system for South Africa, but also leave room for the diversity of our people clothed in the rainbow colours of cultural and religious multiplicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]