I refer with reluctance to my assumption of the Presidency of the South African Institute of Race Relations. Ideally, every column should be a battlefield of ideas. It should be about advancing views and perspectives with the objective of encouraging debates and intellectual engagement. The focus should be on ideas, not the writer. Given that ideas are not free-floating in space, separating them from individuals is almost impossible.

The announcement of my assumption of the Presidency elicited interesting responses from a number of quarters. By and large the messages were congratulatory. The support from those of the black consciousness tradition was unqualified. Those located in the so-called non-racial political tradition of the ANC found the appointment problematic if not strange. They could not reconcile my black consciousness orientation with the liberalism advocated by the Institute.

Before attempting to engage this concern, it is important to situate the Institute historically. This serves to trace my association with the Institute, and its role in the struggle against apartheid. The latter approach is an antidote to those given to the habit of airbrushing the past with the sole objective of denying certain individuals, institutions and organizations their contribution to the struggle against apartheid. Mbeki’s mean-spirited attempts to malign and discredit Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Helen Suzman are a case in point. As regards Suzman’s contribution, Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners attest that in securing the “political prisoners the right to have access to books, and paper, and writing materials, she [Suzman] probably did more to ensure the sanity, to save the minds, of political prisoners than anyone else did”.

However, in the fervour to rewrite history [to paraphrase Frederick van Zyl Slabbert] the past has become unpredictable. Established in 1929, the Institute seeks to promote racial understanding and integration. It remains committed to the principles of economic and constitutional liberalism. Reputed for research excellence the Institute continues to track trends affected by racial legislation that was in force pre-1994. Maintaining this broad focus has enabled it track government performance in all areas. Presently the Institute runs one of the largest and oldest bursary programmes in South Africa. In the last 24 years the Institute has awarded R194m worth of bursaries. More than two thousands graduates benefited from this support. This includes Nelson Mandela. This year the Institute will spend R12m on bursaries.

My association with the Institute dates back more than 27 years. I attended the Institute’s Saturday matriculation classes aimed at assisting students in the townships surrounding the city of Johannesburg. The Institute supported my university studies. And many years later I was awarded the prestigious Harvard-SA fellowship which at the time fell under the aegis of the Institute. Thus when I was invited to be a member of the Board, I accepted without hesitation.

Contrary to the concerns raised by some of my ANC-aligned friends, I do not find the black consciousness philosophy to be at variance with liberalism. The Institute’s advocacy of the respect for individual rights, the rule of just law, democratic governance, free enterprise, and the creation of opportunities for the poor is not inconsistent with BC. I inherited from BC a culture of engagement in which one does not avoid debates. Incidentally, my former High School teacher, Ishmael Mkhabela, who is also a former President of AZAPO, serves with me on the Board of the Institute.

One does not have to abandon one’s identity to embrace liberalism. Identity is not one-dimensional. We need to affirm the multiplicity of our identities and of our being. One can be black and liberal, Marxist, Christian, Africanist and socialist. Equally, BC adherents are not homogenous. They display socialist, Marxist, Africanist, capitalist and traditionalist tendencies.

Our very Constitution is an embodiment of the principles that the Institute has advocated throughout its existence. Those who are prisoners of history fail to appreciate this link. They remain trapped in the romance of the Revolution and addicted to its rhetoric. This failure reflects a form of intellectual and ideological incoherence and inconsistence. Biko reminded us that good ideas do not need state protection. It is about people assuming their responsibility for their own condition and well-being. They must become their own liberators.

I accepted the position with a great sense of humility, since the previous incumbents of this position are great scholars in their own right. These include; Professors Lawrie Schlemmer, Herman Giliomee, Elwyn Jenkins, Themba Sono, among others.

Like all other structures and institutions, the challenge today is that the Institute needs to recast itself and broaden its base beyond its traditional constituencies. It is a national resource and asset and must continue to sustain its independence from any political party. It must continue to promote its principles through research and analysis, interaction with business, civil society and opinion makers. The Institute must stand up and be counted and provide leadership grounded in facts. The challenge is to reclaim the notion of liberalism from narrow party politics.