In 1998 a group of black academics, journalists, and politicians met to launch the African Renaissance project. The notion of a renaissance was captivating. For too long the black intelligentsia had been on the sidelines watching helplessly the game it should have been playing in influencing ideas and knowledge production. With endorsement from the then deputy president, Thabo Mbeki, the project became a rallying call to intellectual engagement. The corporate sector, forever keen to exploit any opportunity and to ingratiate itself with those in power, embraced the concept with equal enthusiasm.

The notion of an African renaissance was so intoxicating that it became almost obligatory for politicians and academics to refer to it in their speeches. Three days after the conference, the Sowetan published my reflections of the conference. Apartheid, colonialism and whites where responsible for all that is terrible in Africa. I pointed out then that instead of engagement and serious intellectual interrogation the conference was reduced to another chorus of blame. I argued that in the absence of intellectual difference, the idea of an African renaissance is dead on arrival. I was accused of being a prophet of doom. My detractors opined, what sort of black will oppose an initiative that is meant to advance black interests?

I refused to be force-fed the usual claptrap about the idyllic past and the delightful future awaiting this continent. The stubborn reality suggested otherwise. Any initiative must of necessity be alive to the harsh reality of the African condition. Interestingly, this was before some amongst us questioned the cause of HIV and blocked the distribution of anti-retroviral drugs to HIV-positive pregnant women. The African Renaissance project has since become a distant memory. The enthusiastic crowd that attended the 1998 conference had become conspicuous by its absence in Aids debates.

I am reminded of this urge to corral black people into the logic of power by the recent diatribe written by Christine Qunta (When blacks are made to turn on their own race, The Star July 25). While pretending to embrace debate, Qunta rubbishes blacks who are critical of a black government. Qunta argues, “Their willingness to be deployed to discredit African people is not only motivated by material gain or flattery. Like black policemen and askaris during apartheid, there seems to be a genuine belief deep within their consciousness of the omnipotence of white power and conversely the inherent powerless and inferiority of Africans.” Unfortunately, this diatribe is shared by many in government.

Qunta’s argument is, however, fatally defective. First, Qunta assumes that a black government necessarily acts in the interest of black people and that those critical of it are naturally enemies of black people. To follow her logic, Cosatu, SACP, TAC, AZAPO; the 16 000 strong South African Medical Association representing doctors; and the likes of Mandela and Desmond Tutu are enemies of black people. They have after all been vociferous in criticizing the government’s unwillingness to provide anti-retroviral drugs particularly to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV. They argued that denying treatment to millions of HIV infected individuals was tantamount to condemning patients to early and painful deaths. It took the intervention of the courts to bring in sanity in Mbeki’s government.

Second, in Qunta’s worldview black people are imbeciles and simpletons that can only hold one opinion at a time. Complexity and multiplicity of opinions cannot be expected of them. And that a correct opinion necessarily resides with those in power. The revolution has been revealed truth to the ruling clique. Debates that question the wisdom of those in government are misguided. And those in government represent the best of us. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Third, Qunta’s world is now too familiar. Criticism of black government can only be motivated by racism. If a critic is black, attack the critic but don’t forget to bring whites into the picture. In Qunta’s logic, whites are to be implicated in the present massive municipality nationwide protests. Authentic blacks will not take to the streets and will not criticize a black government.

Fourth, stripped of its pretence, Qunta’s article exposes her lack of appreciation of the role of debate in society. Appreciation of difference, and other ways of seeing, and willingness to submit to the force of reason, is what debating is all about. Labels and smears are a poor substitutes for an argument. Not surprisingly, Qunta fails to advance a single example in which her detractors have been wrong.

Lastly, we should be concerned by Qunta’s language. It not only embodies a high form of intolerance but also incites violence against those with whom she differs. As Dr. Xolela Mangcu pointed out, many innocent people where killed after they were falsely accused of being police informers. Members of black consciousness movement became victim to this form of political intolerance. It is strange that this history is now lost to Qunta. Yet she prides herself to have come from the black consciousness tradition.

Some of us are critical because we believe in this black government. We believe it can do better. Our intervention is driven by a desire to correct, and not to condemn. And blacks do not hold copyright to wisdom. Cornell West puts it brilliantly; "racial reasoning is seductive, but fundamentally flawed. It presupposes racial consensus and is constructed on essentialist understandings of race".