Al-Qalam 
By Imraan Buccus
An interesting split seems to have emerged among the most powerful liberal intellectuals in South Africa. There are a number of liberal think tanks in South Africa, with the Institute for Race Relations (IRR), the Brenthurst Foundation and the Centre for Development Enterprise (CDE) arguably being the more influential. They all share some of the same funders and have some overlap in what they do. However, a sharp and important line of differentiation has now emerged.
The CDE pushes a hard line in support of neoliberal economics, but while it is not solely focused on economics, this is where it has most of its clout. The Brenthurst Foundation is a very different animal, and although it also pushes a neoliberal economic position, it largely focuses on international relations. It regularly intervenes in the media in favour of a hardline position in support of the West and organises international conferences bringing pro-West actors together. The IRR has the most wide-ranging interests, including economics, policy, social issues and more.
The CDE does not appear to be directly linked to the Democratic Alliance (DA) or to any governments. The Brenthurst Foundation is, of course, the inhouse foundation for the Oppenheimer Family, who also support the range of liberal political parties, but is also deeply entangled in pro-Western international networks, including its military. It also includes DA leaders in its pro-West nternational conferences.
It is not immediately clear quite why an Oppenheimer project takes such a strong pro-West position, and works so closely with Western governments and their proxies in the Global South. This stance is not in the economic interests of the Oppenheimers as it can only fuel and inflame that claim from the corrupt authoritarian populists that NGOs and what it calls ‘white monopoly capital’ are bent on Western backed regime change.
It has long been understood that the IRR is the primary in-house think tank for the Democratic Alliance. Quite how this relationship works is not clear to outsiders, but there is plenty of evidence to show that it is an important relationship. This means that the IRR is an important player in our politics.
Splits in the liberal establishment are not new. It was interesting to see that when John Steenhuisen appointed the racist, and sexist alt right podcaster Roman Cabnac as his chief of staff the IRR came out with a clear expression of concern. This would appear to indicate that the IRR opposes the shift to alt-right politics within the DA, a shift that has clearly included Steenhuisen as well as Helen Zille.
This is only one line of fracture in the liberal establishment, though. A second fracture has now emerged around international relations. The line in support of the West pushed so hard by the Brenthurst Foundation is blindly ideological and has a character that could be called fundamentalist.
For many years Frans Cronje was the leading intellectual in the IRR. He is a man with an impressive intellect and access to an impressive research team able to glean important and empirically rigorous date sets.
In the run up to the recent elections many commentators, myself included, followed Johnny Steinberg in wondering if the polling by the liberal thinktanks and other DA linked organisations was credible. We were wrong. It turned about to be superb. Even those of us who are strongly opposed to liberalism must agree that people like Cronje and Gareth van Onselen have access to first class polling data.
Cronje is no longer with the IRR but he continues to have influence in our media, and especially in Biznews, one of the leading Inhouse liberal publications.
These things are never entirely clear to outsiders but it seems that Cronje remains close to the IRR and continues to have influence in the DA. Indeed, he acknowledges that he advises the DA.
The entire spectrum of liberal opinion in South Africa, from its centre to its extreme fringe, is strongly pro-Israel. The concern that has been extended to the people of Ukraine has not been extended to the people of Palestine. This is a global phenomenon, and it is no surprise that it is repeated here.
But while Mills takes an almost fundamentalist pro-West line in his regular missives in the Daily Maverick, a line with hysterical undertones and marked by a strident moralising tone, Cronje is taking a much more pragmatic line in Biznews.
We cannot get into other people’s minds, but reading Mills, one gets the sense that his pro-West fundamentalism trumps any concerns for our own country, economy and people. Cronje, on the other hand, clearly has a deep concern for our country and wants to see an economy that works for the country.
Interestingly, he takes a position on energy much closer to that of the ANC and the trade unions than the previously standard liberal view that pushes hard for a very rapid shift to privately owned renewable production. Cronje’s position, which he clearly says is opposed to that of the West, is that South Africa needs to not cave into Western pressure to rush into renewables at a pace that will damage our economy.
In a talk screened on Biznews on 17 September, Cronje curtly rejects the sort of fundamentalism apparent in Mill’s writing in favour of a pragmatic approach to international relations. He makes it crystal clear that he thinks that South Africa should think for itself and not just accept Western prescriptions.
He argues that the West is in decline, that a multipolar world is now a fact and that as a country that produces less than 1% of global GDP, South Africa cannot pick one side in the competition between the great powers. Cronje insists that foreign policy on economic questions must be driven by national interests and cannot take the form of hostility to great powers.
He also dismisses the pre-GNU approach of the DA to international relations, which echoed the fundamentalism of Mills, as ‘completely naïve’. Cronje makes a very strong break with the politics of Mills, insisting that South Africa must think for itself and not follow the editorial page of the New York Times and its deep hostility to the rivals of the West.
Interestingly, the DA seems to have rapidly moved from the Mills position to the Cronje position. Media reports on Steenhuisen’s recent trip to China said that he was ‘blown away’ and saw a huge market for South Africa’s agricultural exports. Steenhuisen shook Xi Jinping’s hand and was said to have endorsed the One China policy.
If the DA and one of its leading advisors are now, on pragmatic economic grounds, taking the view that South Africa must work with China, there has been a decisive shift in liberal opinion, one that may well also result in an opening into an acceptance of the potential economic benefits of Brics.
This leaves Mill’s and the Brenthurst Foundation out on a limb. It also indicates a sharp break within the liberal media as well as its leading intellectuals and thinktanks.
The shift away from pro-West fundamentalism within the liberal establishment is welcome. This is not because it will allow a pragmatic approach to international relations in terms of economics. This has always been the ANC’s approach and the liberal establishment has no power to change it.
The shift is welcome because the liberal establishment is overwhelmingly white, and when it and its institutions and media push a hardcore pro-West line, it creates a severe fracture in our society. That fracture does not just create the impression that most white people represent foreign interests, the interests of our former colonisers. It also enables the wider impression that every NGO and critic, even if left-leaning, is really a proxy for Western interests. This seriously damages our society.
We can and must be critical of all authoritarian states, whether they are Western aligned or not. We must also be critical of all states committing war crimes, whether Western aligned or not. We should be working to make political alliances with the democratic alternatives to the West, such as Brazil, and be as committed as we can to defending democracy from its enemies at home.
But we can do this while simultaneously and pragmatically prioritising our own economic interests and our people who continue to languish in poverty and unemployment. After all, if we refused to trade with every state that was authoritarian or had committed war crimes, we would have to refuse to trade with all of the great powers, including the United States. That’s just not viable.
Dr Buccus is Al-Qalam editor.
