Earlier this month, respected South African anti-apartheid activist, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, appears to have proposed a tax on white South Africans with the aim of claiming reparations for the apartheid era.
I have to say that this news struck me like a slap in the face, having been an admirer of “The Bish” for decades. On the surface of it, there is so much that is wrong and unfair about this suggestion that it seems completely incongruous with Tutu’s existing record of moderation and forgiveness. On that basis alone, it is well worth re-examining his statements carefully.
The first thing one notices is that he didn’t explicitly call for a tax on white people. He called for a wealth tax, and then directly addressed the white South Africans in the room. Everybody seems to have interpreted this as a suggestion of a tax on being white and, to some degree, Tutu seems to have run with this interpretation.
It seems to me that Tutu has noticed what I have noticed, and what any South African with the ability to observe their environment will notice. White people, on average, are many times more wealthy than black people. Despite my initial very negative reaction, I have to concede that I agree with him. In fact, the Archbishop seems to have found a very clever way to mount a political podium that is very dear to me and from which, at times, I myself presume to speak.
However, as this debate charges through the national consciousness, one important line needs to be drawn and defended. While a wealth tax is acceptable, a whiteness tax is not. A tax that is based on the colour of one’s skin must not be tolerated. There are practical and philosophical reasons for this.
South Africa has already implemented a Black Economic Empowerment policy that exists specifically to redress the wrongs of apartheid. White job seekers find themselves excluded from consideration for certain jobs as a matter of course and white-owned companies are automatically excluded from many lucrative tender projects. With this already in place, the suggestion of a whiteness tax does raise the question of how many times white South Africans will be asked to make reparations for the wrongs of the past.
The South African democracy is now about seventeen years old. People born on the day of the first democratic elections are now approaching adulthood and many of them will already have started their first jobs and registered to be taxed. South Africans up to about 40 years of age would never have voted in a non-democratic election and many of the white South Africans of this age contributed meaningfully to the closing days of the struggle. Massive numbers of whites that supported apartheid have emigrated to other countries and many immigrants of European descent have made their homes in our country in the intervening years. The colour of one’s skin bears no relation to whether or not an individual has benefited from apartheid.
Oh Desmond! You are such a comfort.
Here is an interesting case in point: A certain Archbishop Desmond Tutu was appointed Bishop of Johannesburg in 1985 and elevated to the Archbishopric of Cape Town the following year, remaining in this post until 1996. During his tenure in Cape Town, he dwelt quietly in an ex officio residence in the wealthy white suburb of Bishop’s Court. Having already established credentials as a leading anti-apartheid activist, he contributed significantly and selflessly to the revolution from this comfortable environment, quite unlike Nelson Mandela, who was languishing in a nearby prison. With his ecclesiastical credentials affording him the luxury of contact with the press and international travel, he rapidly acquired an international reputation that has earned him a Nobel Peace Prize and a recent mention on Top Gear. To date, he has authored or co-authored 33 books and, even in retirement, remains a household name throughout the world.
It is, quite honestly, difficult to name any other South African who has benefitted as much from apartheid, when taking into account the difference between his adult lifestyle and his exceedingly humble birth. Admittedly, The Bish made his own luck by working tirelessly, being exceptionally brave in the face of oppression and being a canny politician who, in the midst of the struggle, had the insight and ability to build a bridge between the people he was defending and the youthful generation of the oppressors. All of this would have been pointless, and most of it impossible, without the vehicle of apartheid.
In my mind there is no doubt that Desmond Tutu knows this. He also knows that South African taxation works on a sliding scale in which the the wealthy, including the disproportionally wealthy whites, already pay a larger proportion of their income to the government.
What Tutu is actually suggesting is hidden in the fine print. He wants an additional contribution paid by wealthy South Africans to be administered as a separate fund that is explicitly earmarked for the upliftment of poor South Africans so that it cannot be spent on silly submarines and tender kickbacks. Can a sane South African oppose this suggestion? Well, they can, but only on the grounds of objecting to paying more tax. Is our tax likely to increase in the next few years anyway? Most definitely. Tutu’s suggestion would simply ensure that the additional tax revenue was more likely to be spent where it is needed.
The Bish has forged his career with cleverly contentious statements that force us to re-examine the status quo. In so doing he has become the lovable grandfather of all South Africans excepting, perhaps, the irredeemably right-wing ones. No matter how shocking his initial tax suggestions seemed, they are no different from the suggestions that he has always made. His recent clarification that calls for wealthy South Africans to establish a voluntary fund to support poor South Africans makes even more sense than the levying of a tax. “Tax” is always a four-letter word. A voluntary contribution to nation building is something that I would definitely consider.
Related posts:
