Recent student protests are entirely counterproductive

DAVID BILCHITZ

South Africa’s culture of protest developed initially under apartheid when there was an authoritarian government that would brook no dissent. While the liberation movements sought to use non-violent methods of protest in the 1950s, increasing repression by the Nationalist government led them to adopt more violent strategies from the 1960s onwards.

With the advent of a democratic South Africa, the days of violent protest were meant to end. The Constitution expressed this ideal clearly when it recognised the right, “peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions”.

In a country with a government that is elected legitimately by the whole population, the ethos should become one of persuading elected representatives and fellow citizens rather than a zero-sum game of coercion and force.

Unfortunately, recent student protests demonstrate that the culture of protest in our country has failed to change in line with the transformation of our political system. The violence is itself undemocratic: the vast majority of students want to have no part of it.

It has therefore split a potentially powerful movement. Moreover, it is entirely counterproductive: ensuring all qualifying students can study without regard to their ability to afford university fees is a noble aim, yet, if millions have to be spent on security and re-building existing infrastructure, this goal becomes even more difficult to achieve.

Professor Jonathan Jansen, vice-chancellor of the University of the Free State, has also recently drawn attention to how these protests are causing some major donors to withdraw from the universities, thus jeopardising even further their financial positions and ability to provide life-changing opportunities to students.

South African students and academics need to pull back from the brink of disaster and develop a vibrant, democratic culture on campuses. In my view, this requires attention to three important elements.

The first is a recognition that the right to protest and advocate is the life-blood of democratic cultures. Some universities and interest groups are too quick to attempt to silence competing voices: the answer to most forms of speech (excluding clear hatred and incitement to harm) should be more speech.

The second is that the right to protest has its limits and must respect the ability of individuals and groups not to join a protest. If the vast majority of students wish to attend a lecture, a small group cannot be allowed to impose their will on the others: that is fascism not democracy.

Where students (or other citizens) engage in criminal behaviour such as violence towards other persons or property, there must be severe legal consequences, making it clear that the South African community will not tolerate such actions.

The last element is the importance of responsive leadership: physical violence often erupts due to a sense of frustration that no-one is listening and unless something extreme is done, the status quo will remain. To address this problem, university management (and the government in other circumstances) must accept an obligation to engage with students and other interest groups and respond reasonably to them. I do not suggest that management must always agree with those they engage with: yet, where the demands are reasonable, management, academics and students can often find common cause and will be a more powerful constituency if they work together.

The means we adopt to achieve our ends matter: this is a basic ethical lesson in many traditions. Jewish ethics, for instance, teaches that G-d commanded Moses to speak to a rock to provide water for the people. Instead, Moses struck the rock. For this action he was not allowed to enter the Promised Land.

The same end was achieved – water flowed from the rock – but the means differed fundamentally: the narrative draws our attention to the vast difference between the modality of “hitting” (of violence) and that of “speaking” (persuasion).

Those who resort to physical force lose the mantle of credibility and take us further away from a truly democratic society. The means we adopt affect the eventual goals that we can achieve.

It is the responsibility of us all to help nurture a different kind of society – and university in which speech and persuasion displace violence and coercion. Our future depends on it.

David Bilchitz is a Professor of Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Law at the University of Johannesburg; Director of a leading research institute in advanced constitutional law (SAIFAC); and Secretary-General of the International Association of Constitutional Law